[Internal-cg] ICANN52

Tue Feb 17 13:24:43 UTC 2015

DEAR ALL,
FACT IS FACT AND REALITY IS REALITY
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF SOME DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES WHO TALK
ABOUT LENGTHY PROCESS IN CWG.
YES THE PROCESS IS LENGTHY BUT THAT IS CRUCIAL AND FUNDAMENTAL.
WHY WE SHOULD HURRY ?
The issue is complex and the requirements are clear and the matter was
reiterated by Larry and confirmed by ICANN Board.
let us cross fingers and encourage everybody to be cautious and prudent
Regards
Kavouss

2015-02-17 13:27 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:

>  Thanks Alissa for the reminder and the reference ..
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 16, 2015 7:29 PM
> *To:* Manal Ismail
> *Cc:* WUKnoben; ICG
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
>
>
>
> As Narelle pointed out, we ask about this explicitly in section IV bullet
> point 5 in our RFP:
>
>
>
> "Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to take
> to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are
> completed."
>
>
>
> So we expect the proposal we receive from the CWG to address this. My
> understanding is that the bulk of the CWG’s work on RFP section IV will
> continue once the group has more clarity on the content of the response to
> RFP section III.
>
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
>
>
>   Further to the below exchange, here is what Larry said regarding
> implementation in the IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN
> Accountability Information Session
> <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountability>
>  on Sun. ..
>
>
>
> “AND I ALSO ASK THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSIDER THAT GIVEN THE NEED TO
> DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND TEST THESE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO A FINAL TRANSITION,
> CAN THEY GET IT ALL DONE IN A TIME FRAME CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTATIONS
> OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS?I ASKED TODAY AT A MEETING SOME REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
> CWG WERE PRESENT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY ESTIMATE OF
> THE LENGTH OF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT
> HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE.  AND I HAVE TO SAY NO ONE COULD ANSWER THAT,
> AND I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE  FACTORED
> INTO THE TIME FRAME FOR TRANSITION.  AND IF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS GOING
> TO TAKE A YEAR TO IMPLEMENT, WELL, THAT WILL DELAY THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION
> OF THE IANA FUNCTIONS.”
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org <internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Manal Ismail
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:18 AM
> *To:* WUKnoben; internal-cg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
>
>
>
> Just recognized that my response to this thread did not address
> Wolf-Ulrich's point regarding 'implementation' ..
>
> I'm not sure whether Wolf-Ulrich is referring to the same session, but I
> recall that this was also raised as a question by Larry to the co-chairs of
> the CWG at a GAC session, I believe on Sun. ..
>
> I agree with Milton this needs further scrutiny, as we need to have a
> common understanding on what we mean by implementation here and how does
> this align with NTIA's expectation ..
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org <internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *WUKnoben
> *Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2015 4:52 AM
> *To:* WUKnoben; internal-cg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
>
>
>
> In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring
> to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “
> *numbers* and protocols” proposals.
>
>
>
> This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> *From:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM
>
> *To:* internal-cg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* ICANN52
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship
> Transition and the future ICG related work:
>
>    - see *statement from Steve Crocker*, ICANN Board Chair:
>
>   <<
>
> *We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how
> ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream
> 1 proposal from the CCWG.  We hope the following will be helpful.*
>
> *NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups.  They cannot
> act on just one.  Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into
> account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG.  We are
> heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons
> from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at
> roughly the same time.  When ICANN receives these proposals, we will
> forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have
> previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying
> communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared
> with the community during the development of the proposals.*
>
> *We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to
> ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to
> NTIA in a coordinated manner.*
>
> *With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely
> open to improvements*.
>
>              >>
>
>
>
>     He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the
> CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability.
>
>     Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline
> accordingly.
>
>    - *Larry Strickling, NTIA* Assistant Secretary, in a session on
>    Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from
>    the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole
>    should be ready for implementation.
>
>      From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol
> proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness.
> I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and
> the potential consequences.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150217/959b04b0/attachment-0001.html>