[Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v4

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Wed Dec 10 06:48:31 UTC 2014

Many thanks Alissa and everyone else for the comments ..

I almost agree to all and have included my own inline below ..

Apologies for the late sending ..

Looking forward to further discuss on the call ..

Kind Regards



From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:20 AM
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v4


I have consolidated the comments and edits from Milton, Adiel, Joe, and
Russ in the attached v4
20process>. I accepted changes on all the text where no one had
commented for easier reading. I also inserted a few comments/edits of my
own the proposed changes, which I repeat below.


Step 1a, bullet 3: Milton suggested using "Whether the proposal obtained
consensus" instead of "How the proposal obtained consensus." 

I am fine with "whether." I would also be fine with "Whether and how."
In the RFP, we ask the communities to explain "the steps that were taken
to develop the proposal and to determine consensus." I would consider a
list of those steps to be the "how."


[MI]: I'm fine with either .. Although I think the point is that we want
to ensure 'Whether' the proposal obtained consensus (the steps of which
will describe 'How' of course as you rightly mentioned) yet we do not
have agreed detailed criteria to evaluate the 'How' steps .. so maybe we
should not be focusing on the steps and be more concerned with the
result ..  


Step 1b: Adiel suggested adding a bullet about timeliness. 

I do not think this is actionable and so should not be included. If we
get a proposal after the target deadline, I do not believe we are in a
position to do anything other than start conducting the assessment in
step 1. Of course, if we get a proposal many weeks/months after the
target deadline, it will create some chaos for all of the steps
afterward, but I don't really see a lot of value in specifying how we
will handle every possible case of that sort that could arise depending
on the exact timing and sequence of the arrival of the component


[MI]: Agree with your reasons for not adding this ..


Step 2: Adiel questioned whether the statement that the ICG's role "is
not to draft a single transition proposal" is accurate.

I believe it is accurate, in the sense that we are not "drafting" or
writing anything of our own. I added the words "of its own" to the end
of that phrase to try to make this more clear.


[MI]: Agree with you but also see Adiel's point .. The draft is
misleading until you finish reading whole sentence, which is fine for me
.. But I can suggest the following alternative:

"According to the ICG Charter, its role is to assemble a single
transition proposal from component proposals, not to draft its own." 


Step 2: Adiel questioned the use of the word "unifying."

I agree that "unifying" and "uniform" are confusing. I believe our task
is one of assembly. Our goal is to end up with one document, but not to
massage the text of the component proposals to achieve "unity." I have
replaced the word "unified" in this section with the word "single" to
make this clear. 


[MI]: Agree with you and Adiel ..


Step 2a: Joe inserted "possibly conflicting" as a qualifier for

I don't understand what a conflicting overlap is, and I think the
proposals need to have a coherent story about all overlaps. So I
disagree with this addition.


[MI]: I noted the rest of the discussion on this in later emails .. So
basically you and Joe are saying the same thing, whether, in case of
overlaps, the different proposals are suggesting the same or conflicting
things .. Yet I would suggest saying here "any conflicting overlaps"
rather than "all possibly conflicting overlaps" .. The reason is that
the latter gives the feeling that we already expect overlaps and we
already expect that those overlaps are suggesting conflicting proposals
.. Is this the case? Or have I misunderstood it?


Step 2b: Joe asked whether we need to cross-reference the ICANN
accountability work.

I think this is 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?"


[MI]: In fact, I have a question on the second part stating: "Are there
any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?" .. How
are we going to handle such gaps? Will we go back to the relevant
operational community only and they coordinate with CCWG-Accountability
if necessary or we will coordinate directly with both?


Step 2c: There has been list discussion between Joe and Russ about

I suggested some text as a middle ground approach. In the RFP we do ask
the communities to describe any testing they do. I'm not quite sure how
the test results could conflict with each other or otherwise be
problematic in combination, but I'm happy to check for that when we're
assembling the single proposal.


[MI]: I'm fine with the new text you proposed for Step 2c ..


[MI]: Step 3: I have a problem understanding the highlighted part of
this sentence: "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities
to have public comments addressed within their components before
assembling an interim final proposal."

Is this meant to say: 

-          "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to
have public comments on their components addressed before assembling an
interim final proposal."? OR

-          "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to
have public comments addressed within their communities before
assembling an interim final proposal."


Step 5: I have made the latest changes suggested on the list by Milton,
which I think address everyone's concerns.


[MI]: Agree with Milton's proposed text, but I have 2 remarks:

-          I'm more inclined to concatenate the first 2 bullets (5.a &
5.b) into one that reads "The ICG will post the final proposal on its
public web site and transmit it to the ICANN Board." .. The rationale is
that I feel those are simultaneous steps whereas as the bullets stands
now they give the feeling that those are 2 sequential steps that may
have a period of time in between ..

-          I'm also inclined to precede bullet 5.c with "As
conveyed/communicated by the ICANN Board," .. so the whole sentence
would read " As conveyed/communicated by the ICANN Board, the Board will
send the final proposal to NTIA without making any changes within 14
days of receiving the proposal from the ICG. Any accompanying letter
will be posted publicly " .. The rationale here is, rather than speaking
on behalf of the Board or say that we are expecting, that we accurately
describe the situation .. This is what was conveyed to us from the Board
.. Not sure though, language wise, whether it's better/more accurate to
say convey, communicate or something else ..





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141210/0e70836c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list