[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Mon Feb 23 13:04:43 UTC 2015


Glad we have a happy ending :) !! but couldn't resist noting that:

If you are of the view that CCWG-Accountability work is an essential
part of the final proposal, great:
- Larry Strickling noted this
- CWG-IANA is coordinating closely with CCWG-Accountability
- Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly
through the CWG-IANA Names proposal

If you are of the view that no direct coordination is needed between ICG
and CCWG-Accountability, this is also fine:
- There is no direct coordination currently taking place
- Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly
through the CWG-IANA Names proposal

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 5:22 PM
To: Jon Nevett
Cc: ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process
updates

To me it appears that we completely agree that we should not initiate 
any formal action/coordination at this point in time. ;-)


On 20.02.15 14:45 , Jon Nevett wrote:
> Daniel:
>
> Great questions for the group.  All I am saying is that to many of us
these issues are inextricably intertwined and any efforts to separate
would not be conducive to achieving consensus.  I agree with Kavouss who
said that we simply need to let the CWG and the CCWG do their work.
Let's not distract them, which could cause further delay.
>
> Best,
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
<daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Jon,
>>
>> can you be specific on what coordination is necessary *at this point
in time*? What is it that we should ask CCWG?
>>
>> Further it would help me to understand your point if you could
speculate briefly about what questions could become relevant in the near
future.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 20.02.15 14:33 , Jon Nevett wrote:
>>> Daniel:
>>>
>>> Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming
community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement
of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect
that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally
coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability.  Efforts to avoid the
issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in
the sand that need not be drawn.
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, the two processes are
>>>> interrelated and interdependent
>>>> and should appropriately coordinate their work.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
<daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Parallel" lines do not touch.
>>>> Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
>>>>
>>>> Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for
appropriateness is necessity.
>>>>
>>>> *At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal*
coordination.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work
formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that
ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG
work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should
remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of
IANA functions".
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
>>>>> Daniel:
>>>>>
>>>>> I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
>>>>>
>>>>>   <Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
>>>>>
>>>>>  From our charter:
>>>>>
>>>>> The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside
a
>>>>> parallel and
>>>>> related process on enhancing ICANN accountability.  While
maintaining the
>>>>> accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to
both
>>>>> processes,
>>>>> this group's  scope is focused on the arrangements required for
the
>>>>> continuance
>>>>> of  IANA  functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner
after
>>>>> the expiry of
>>>>> the  NTIA ICANN  contract.  Nevertheless, the two processes are
>>>>> interrelated and interdependent
>>>>> and should appropriately coordinate their work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jon
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
>>>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kavouss,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a
valid
>>>>>> CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to
NTIA
>>>>>> to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are
>>>>>> transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates
in
>>>>>> their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or
even
>>>>>> its implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push
CWG in
>>>>>> any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are
>>>>>> willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that
allows
>>>>>> us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date
they
>>>>>> communicated to us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons,
>>>>>> statements or actions over oblique ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me
that it
>>>>>> is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings,
>>>>>> while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out.
>>>>>> Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be
clear
>>>>>> while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-)
>>>>>> Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear All
>>>>>>> It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are
in
>>>>>>> hurry and push CWG unnecessarily.
>>>>>>> Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work
>>>>>>> stream 1 of CCWG.
>>>>>>> Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is
not valid
>>>>>>> People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and
prudently
>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg
>>>>>>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
<mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chairs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in
hand
>>>>>>>> as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use
of
>>>>>>>> time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities
that
>>>>>>>> did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest
and
>>>>>>>> I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the
RIRs
>>>>>>>> informed of this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time
line
>>>>>>>> if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a
high
>>>>>>>> quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be
>>>>>>>> implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive
such a
>>>>>>>> response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I
consider it
>>>>>>>> important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to
work
>>>>>>>> as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to
do
>>>>>>>> so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe
this
>>>>>>>> will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial
work we
>>>>>>>> should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is
100%
>>>>>>>> consistent with our earlier stated plans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary
>>>>>>>> inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process
and
>>>>>>>> output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific
>>>>>>>> operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN
>>>>>>>> accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are
>>>>>>>> absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work
of
>>>>>>>> the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output
to the
>>>>>>>> ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response
to
>>>>>>>> us, this situation may change and things can potentially become
very
>>>>>>>> complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses
we
>>>>>>>> have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the
>>>>>>>> "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's
agree
>>>>>>>> to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG
response
>>>>>>>> needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us
not
>>>>>>>> discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list