[Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Dec 10 10:48:27 UTC 2014 

OECD meeting is running long so I won't be able to join the call. On the 
accountability issue, I'm fine with the concept of leaving it to the 
individual communities to be the one who raise the issue to us.
On 12/10/2014 5:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> I’ve inserted some comments to be discussed.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> *From:* Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:19 AM
> *To:* joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> *Cc:* ICG <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process
> On Dec 9, 2014, at 2:53 PM, joseph alhadeff 
> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> Alissa, Milton:
>>
>> Accountability.  The phrasing may not be correct to avoid confusion, 
>> it was whether we needed to have a cross reference on whether any 
>> developments of the ICANN accountability process could/had impact/ed 
>> the accountability processes of the member communities. This is a 
>> foward looking factor that may never arise, but there could be 
>> sshadow cast by developments in the ICANN accountability work.  More 
>> of a place holder than anything.
> Ok. I still think the first question in 2b covers this, but perhaps it 
> will become more clear if we can discuss it on the call. I think it’s 
> important that we not build in a way for us to second-guess the 
> substance of the proposals we receive from any of the operational 
> communities. For example, if between the time we receive the names 
> community proposal and the time we’re wrapping up step 2, something 
> happens in the ICANN accountability work that undermines the names 
> proposal, I want the names community to be the judge of that, not us.
>
>>
>> The General comment.  Do we accept any comments from stakeholders on 
>> individual community proposals after they are released by the 
>> community and while we are in the process of reviewing them in step 1.
> Of course people can submit comments to us at any time, but I don’t 
> think we should specifically seek comments in the step 1 phase, 
> because commenters would be commenting on the same substance that they 
> had an opportunity to comment on in the operational communities 
> themselves. We have two public comment periods planned for after 
> changes may have been made depending on our assessments.
> Alissa
>
>>
>> Thanks-
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On 12/9/2014 5:32 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> Couple of questions below.
>>> On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:41 AM, joseph alhadeff 
>>> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com <mailto: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 2^nd bullet)Whether input/comments the ICG received 
>>>> directlythatwere shared with the operational 
>>>> communitywereconsidered/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 arenotexpected to 
>>>> beuniform[j1] <x-msg://108/#_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 allpossibly conflicting overlaps[j2] 
>>>> <x-msg://108/#_msocom_2>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] <x-msg://108/#_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] <x-msg://108/#_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:
>>>>> 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 <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. 
>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20process>
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 <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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <proposal-finalization-process-v3.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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
>>>>
>>>> <proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw-alc-jha.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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/20141210/4f82af7c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list