[Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process

Tue Dec 9 22:43:10 UTC 2014

Dear Alissa,
I could also agree with the language used by Milton
Kavouss

2014-12-09 23:32 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi Joe,
>
> Couple of questions below.
>
> On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:41 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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 2nd 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 notexpected to be uniform [j1] 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]  between the functions resolved in a workable
> manner?
>
> ·         (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?
>
>
> Milton had asked you to clarify what you mean by “operations community
> accountability functions.” I am also having trouble understanding what you
> mean with your suggestion here, or what is not already covered by the fact
> that we are already asking "Do the proposals together include appropriate
> and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running
> the IANA function?"
>
>
> ·         (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.
>
>
> What do you mean by a “general comment process”?
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> ------------------------------
>  [j1]Remove “essentially disjoint” as may be read by some as incoherent
> within their own logic as opposed to in comparison to others.
>  [j2]An overlap may not be necessarily conflicting and may not need to be
> resolved.
>
> On 12/8/2014 10:44 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
> All,
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Alissa Cooper <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>
> *Cc: *ICG <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. <
> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20process
> >
>
> On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in
> dropbox here:
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx?dl=0
>
>
> Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown
> in the Excel file here:
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> =
>
>
>
> I’ve highlighted these additions in yellow, to distinguish them from other
> edits.
>
> (and these are open to discussion of course).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul.
>
> <proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100
>
>
>
> On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:11 am, Alissa Cooper <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.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>
> <proposal-finalization-process-v3.docx>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
> =
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
> <proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw-alc-jha.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141209/148e6fa8/attachment-0001.html>