[Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Tue Dec 9 16:41:16 UTC 2014
Colleagues as I may not be able to make the call, I wanted to provide
some high level observations and minor proposed edits (attached in
redline in the document):
·(1a 2^nd bullet)Whether input/comments the ICG received directly that
were shared with the operational community were considered/addressed.
·(Para 2) According to the ICG Charter, its role is not to draft a
single transition proposal, but rather to assemble a proposal from
component proposals.These components are not expected to be uniform [j1]
<#_msocom_1>as they relate to the specific IANA functions which are of
interest to each operational community.
·(2a) Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together
in a single unified proposal? Do they suggest any arrangements that are
not compatible with each other? Is the handling of all possibly
conflicting overlaps[j2] <#_msocom_2>between the functions resolved in a
·(2b) comment from previous round: Do we add a cross reference to
overall accountability work here: Proposal Do any of the changes
proposed in the relevant stream of ICANN accountability work negatively
impact any of the operations com unity accountability functions outlined
in the unified proposal?
·(2c) I think the RFP called for a description of appropriate testing,
therefore it should be part of the submission.How its described is not
the issue, that its described and sufficient is.
·General Question.Do we have a general comment process for a proposal
that is going through step 1, or just a process who don't think their
comments were taken on board.
[j1] <#_msoanchor_1>Remove "essentially disjoint" as may be read by some
as incoherent within their own logic as opposed to in comparison to others.
[j2] <#_msoanchor_2>An overlap may not be necessarily conflicting and
may not need to be resolved.
On 12/8/2014 10:44 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and
> the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this
> week's call or shortly thereafter.
> Begin forwarded message:
>> *From: *Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
>> *Subject: **Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3*
>> *Date: *December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST
>> *To: *Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net <mailto:pwilson at apnic.net>>
>> *Cc: *ICG <internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>>
>> Hi Paul,
>> I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I've
>> also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my
>> comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo.
>> On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net
>> <mailto:pwilson at apnic.net>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I've proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also
>>> in dropbox here:
>>> Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as
>>> shown in the Excel file here:
>>> In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in
>>> March, and a final proposal in June; so I've added these extra steps
>>> to the process.
>> Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.
>>> Also, please note I've proposed a few substantial additional steps
>>> in this process:
>>> - A public call for comments on the community proposal development
>>> processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally
>>> gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the
>>> processes which produced community proposals.
>> I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts
>> here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their
>> processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or
>> disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt
>> that they could not provide comments within those processes, they
>> could send them to the ICG forum
>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we've been passing
>> those on to the communities.
>> The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don't think
>> we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a
>> parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we're
>> expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP
>> responses. I also do not think it's appropriate for us to try to
>> circumvent the community processes --- if the process comments we
>> receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements
>> made in the proposals are inconsistent, it's not clear what we would
>> do with that information.
>> My edits in the attached reflect this view --- I've re-combined into
>> a single step 1 the ICG's initial reviews of both process and substance.
>>> - A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and
>>> other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal.
>>> - Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into
>>> the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present
>>> their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to
>>> present the final transition proposal.
>>> - Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a
>>> meeting with them; rather than mere "transmission" to them.
>> I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the
>> above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we
>> might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already
>> declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I
>> don't think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to
>> people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other
>> venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I'd
>> rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And
>> I'm not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board
>> in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the
>> statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo.
>> Looking forward to feedback from you and others.
>>> I've highlighted these additions in yellow, to distinguish them from
>>> other edits.
>>> (and these are open to discussion of course).
>>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC
>>> <dg at apnic.net <mailto:dg at apnic.net>>
>>> http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/>
>>> +61 7 3858 3100
>>> On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:11 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in
>>> <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>>> Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of the proposal
>>>> finalization process document. Joe did the heavy lifting to
>>>> incorporate edits based on our discussion in LA. I have also
>>>> incorporate the appropriate section of Lynn's text concerning the
>>>> role of ICANN in the submission process. However, I think the full
>>>> list of Lynn's bullets belong in a separate statement that is
>>>> specifically about expectations concerning ICANN/ICANN Board/NTIA
>>>> participation during the entire transition plan development
>>>> process. I think the attached document should remain focused on
>>>> proposal finalization, and ultimately the content of section 4
>>>> should directly reflect the appropriate portion of whatever final
>>>> content emerges from the thread that Lynn started.
>>>> Feedback is of course welcome, and there are a few comments in the
>>>> document from Joe and myself that are worth discussion. I have
>>>> attached a clean copy; a redlined version is also available in Dropbox.
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 38546 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Internal-cg