[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

Mon Feb 23 15:04:18 UTC 2015

Hi Joseph:.  I agree that we should continue to monitor the CCWG work,
which is the role for our two Liaisons to that group.  Additionally, there
is some cross-over in membership (myself and Keith, for example), so this
should be sufficiently covered.

Thanks‹

J.

On 2/23/15, 8:21 , "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

>I would suggest a modification to Daniel's parallel lines hypothesis.  We
>are not sure the lines are fully parallel until the work is over. Thus we
>should monitor the CCWG work to assure it does not intersect.  To stretch
>the hypothesis beyond workable we also need to assure that there are no
>ecosystem effects that strongly influence/skew our line as well.
>
>Joe 
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>> 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 group¹s  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
>_______________________________________________
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg