[Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG

Fri Oct 3 10:25:57 UTC 2014

Alissa,
Thank you very much in sharing this view with us after you had the
clearance mechanism.
What Jonathan and Byron indicated is a fact and need careful consideration.
A French proverb says" vite fait, mal fait" i.e. quickly done ,badly done.
On the other hand we have publicly announce 15  January 2015 a date which
was originally 31 December 2014  .
It should be noted that any proposal submitted to NTIA which does not
properly address the issue of transition would have the risk of not being
accepted.
What we could suggest to Jonathan and Byron  are

1.to use the ICANN 51 opportunity to discuss as mush as possible the matter
Secondly,

2.to  try organizing few conference calls /virtual meetings with different
time zone allowing wider participation between ICANN 51 and end of the year
,say  01 December .
Thirdly
3..should still be a difficulty to conclude then make ICG aware of that and
then we should think of any option available

4.To consider the postponement of delivery of our final report to NTIA

We need to discuss this issue at our third f2f meeting in LA

I might have other proposal but I will submit that once we meet at LA
Kavouss

2014-10-03 0:59 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> I wanted to share the email exchange below with the ICG. Mohamed, Patrick
> and I were under the impression that the email we received from Jonathan
> and Byron was private correspondence, and I responded privately on behalf
> of the three of us accordingly, but it seems that the original message has
> been made public <
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+to+ICG+--+24+September+2014>
> so we wanted to make sure the ICG was aware of the full exchange.
>
> I will follow up with Jonathan and Byron so that we make sure to have
> clarity in the future about when communications are intended for the full
> ICG and when not.
>
> Alissa
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> *Subject: **Re: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on
> naming related functions and the work of the ICG*
> *Date: *September 25, 2014 at 10:17:35 AM PDT
> *To: *Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, <
> mbashir at mbash.net>, 'Patrik Falstrom -' <paf at frobbit.se>
> *Cc: *Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, <
> wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, 'Milton Mueller -' <mueller at syr.edu>,
> 'James Bladel -' <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 'Keith Drazek -' <
> kdrazek at verisign.com>, 'Jon Nevett -' <jon at donuts.co>, <mnuduma at yahoo.com>,
> Martin Boyle <martin.boyle at nominet.org.uk>, "'Xiaodong Lee:'" <xl at cnnic.cn>,
> <keith at internetnz.net.nz>
>
> Jonathan, Byron,
>
> Thank you for the update. I realize that there have been extensive efforts
> put into developing a somewhat novel process on short order for the
> purposes of developing a transition proposal, and I very much appreciate
> the effort that you and your colleagues in the other constituencies have
> put into this.
>
> Regarding the timeline, we did designate January 15 (and all of the other
> milestones) as a “target” so as to acknowledge the potential need for some
> wiggle room on either side to accommodate unforeseen circumstances that may
> arise in the various communities. With that said, the January 15 target was
> deliberately chosen with the rest of the  consultation and coordination
> steps in mind, and with a very strong emphasis on completion of the
> transition by September 30, 2015. As I noted at the first ICG meeting, I
> think the political likelihood of getting a second chance to transition
> after that date are extremely slim, and the ICG as a whole seems quite
> motivated to have the transition completed next year.
>
> As such, while small delays can probably accommodated, delays on the order
> of one month or more (e.g., from mid-January to mid-February) will present
> difficulties for the rest of the coordination process that the ICG has
> committed to, and could put a timely completion of the full transition at
> risk. I realize that face-to-face meetings have been a key mode of doing
> business in the past, but I would urge you to consider alternative methods
> for completing a transition proposal for names that would not require
> postponement until ICANN 52 if at all possible. If the processes in the
> operational communities get too far out of sync, the ICG may need to
> proceed with its coordination with only a subset of proposals to assemble
> and finalize. That would be far from an ideal situation.
>
> In any event, I’m very glad to hear that the CWG is getting started. Feel
> free to send RFP questions if you have them.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>
> On 9/24/14, 7:00 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed,
>
> We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as
> co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the
>  Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship
> Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on
> the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines
> set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for
> Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014.
>
> We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition
> process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the
> process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming
> community. At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and
> the SSAC came together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter
> for what will become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to
> be able to finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter
> has been approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance
> with its own rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as
> members and observers, again according to each SO and AC’s rules and
> procedures. In addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG
> and is actively considering the invitation. With the establishment of the
> CWG, we expect to be able to provide a proposal from the naming community.
>
> While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement
> of such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is
> necessarily time consuming.  Even though many of the chartering SO/AC’s
> have yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members,
> we have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG
> meeting right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los
> Angeles.  After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another
> opportunity to meet face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not
> anticipate that the CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without
> at least one such face to face meeting and potentially a public
> consultation of the community. Please also be aware  that before a proposal
> could be formally transmitted to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the
> chartering SO/AC’s to approve it through their respective processes.
>
> Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time
> and energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some
> would say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for
> formal proposals set out in the ICG’s RFP. We do hope that shortly upon
> formation of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed
> timetable. It follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the
> RFP or request any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but
> hopefully you are willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may
> have following its formation.
>
> The CWG’s charter provides for a very open process, including no
> limitations on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our
> meetings. We have no doubt that the naming community members on the ICG
> will actively monitor the work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular
> updates on our progress. Should you have any questions or require further
> clarification, we would be pleased hear from you and to respond
> accordingly.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland
> Co-Chairs
> Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship
> transition proposal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141003/670a64d8/attachment.html>