Has the document been sent to the list? I am having some fun with OpenDNSSEC on lisse.NA, which forms part of a learning curve, os if it has it'll pitch up eventually. If it was not send (as PDF), please someone do. Never mind the delay of 2 days between Jan and Mathieu's emails. el On 2015-05-05 12:03, Jordan Carter wrote:

Thanks for sharing this Mathieu.

Where are comments from the other Advisors? Are they incoming?

bests Jordan

On 5 May 2015 at 21:13, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

FYI attached is the feedback we have received from Jan Aart Scholte, our independent Advisor. Jan raises some very useful points for our further deliberations.

I would suggest we count this as "public comment input #1" and add this to our upcoming public comment analysis tool.

Best Mathieu

-------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal Date : Sun, 3 May 2015 14:14:43 +0000 De : Jan Aart Scholte <jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se> <mailto:jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se> Pour : Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> <mailto:adam.peake@icann.org>, CCWG-Advisors <ccwg-advisors@icann.org> <mailto:ccwg-advisors@icann.org>

Dear All

Attached the promised more substantive comments for the CCWG on the draft proposal of 1 May 2015. Really impressive that things have got this far already, though as ever there can be suggestions for going further.

Greetings

Jan [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

Roelof, to me this means they want to do this in an orderly manner. I.e. they probably want to renew for a fixed period in time and then do not want to change this later. They obviously need sufficient lead time but on the other hand probably also don't want cut any extension short. One can always ask his department... el On 2015-05-07 16:17, Roelof Meijer wrote:

What surprises me, is that the letter leaves room for (mis)interpretation on the essential content:

“We have never viewed 30 September as a deadline, but have stated from the beginning of this process that the transition planning should proceed to whatever schedule the community sets” is clear and in line with what Mr. Strickling has publicly stated numerous times. It suggests implicitely that the contract will be extended if necessary to fit “whatever schedule the community sets”.

However, the bit “..please bear in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified … will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” is not so clear. We probably all assume that “the ending of the contract” refers to either 30 September 2015 or the end date of an (or the last of multiple) extension(s).

That is probably a safe assumption, but I fail to understand why Mr. Strickling did not insert a sentence to make that absolutely clear to anyone. Something like: “…prior to 30 September or the date to which the NTIA will extend the present contract to fit the schedule set by the community”.

Best,

Roelof [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

I think Paul's assessment is accurate. We, the community, will need to develop and recommend a consolidated timeline addressing all of the work-streams and dependencies (CWG, CCWG, ICG, ICANN Board, NTIA) to include the implementation phase described by Secretary Strickling. To begin such an effort, I'd like to suggest a coordination meeting of the Co-Chairs of the CWG, CCWG and ICG, plus the ICANN Board liaisons from all 3 groups. Perhaps we should also request clarification from NTIA regarding the time needed for their review and approval process, based on what they've seen so far from the community. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 1:37 PM To: 'Roelof Meijer'; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal I am quite sure Roelof that Strickling means exactly what you said. I think he would be surprised that you would read it the other way since I think he would see the "ending of the contract" as the last day on which it is in effect - which would either be Sept 30 or the date to which the contract is extended. I am also pretty sure that what they are looking for is a realistic estimate so that they only have to do one single extension - not 3 months now and then 3 more and .... In other words he is asking "how long do you REALLY need?" I will note as well the repeat of the requirement for "implementation" - so the question is not "will we approve the changes in Dublin?" which is, to my mind at least, a relatively realistic expectation but rather "how long after the changes are approved in Dublin will it take for them to be implemented?" - that is the Bylaws changed; and IRP set up; and whatever structrures the CCWG and the CWG call for organized and the functions transferred etc. That seems to me like a much harder and more indefinite question to answer Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl] Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:17 AM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lise Fuhr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal What surprises me, is that the letter leaves room for (mis)interpretation on the essential content: "We have never viewed 30 September as a deadline, but have stated from the beginning of this process that the transition planning should proceed to whatever schedule the community sets" is clear and in line with what Mr. Strickling has publicly stated numerous times. It suggests implicitely that the contract will be extended if necessary to fit "whatever schedule the community sets". However, the bit "..please bear in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified ... will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." is not so clear. We probably all assume that "the ending of the contract" refers to either 30 September 2015 or the end date of an (or the last of multiple) extension(s). That is probably a safe assumption, but I fail to understand why Mr. Strickling did not insert a sentence to make that absolutely clear to anyone. Something like: "...prior to 30 September or the date to which the NTIA will extend the present contract to fit the schedule set by the community". Best, Roelof From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: dinsdag 5 mei 2015 11:13 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal Dear Colleagues, FYI attached is the feedback we have received from Jan Aart Scholte, our independent Advisor. Jan raises some very useful points for our further deliberations. I would suggest we count this as "public comment input #1" and add this to our upcoming public comment analysis tool. Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal Date : Sun, 3 May 2015 14:14:43 +0000 De : Jan Aart Scholte <jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se><mailto:jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se> Pour : Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org><mailto:adam.peake@icann.org>, CCWG-Advisors <ccwg-advisors@icann.org><mailto:ccwg-advisors@icann.org> Dear All Attached the promised more substantive comments for the CCWG on the draft proposal of 1 May 2015. Really impressive that things have got this far already, though as ever there can be suggestions for going further. Greetings Jan

I agree. We should undertake this effort very soon as time is short. Keith, why wouldn’t you – as ICG liaison to the CCWG – bring this to the ICG table? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:12 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig ; 'Roelof Meijer' ; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr ; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near finaldraft proposal I think Paul’s assessment is accurate. We, the community, will need to develop and recommend a consolidated timeline addressing all of the work-streams and dependencies (CWG, CCWG, ICG, ICANN Board, NTIA) to include the implementation phase described by Secretary Strickling. To begin such an effort, I’d like to suggest a coordination meeting of the Co-Chairs of the CWG, CCWG and ICG, plus the ICANN Board liaisons from all 3 groups. Perhaps we should also request clarification from NTIA regarding the time needed for their review and approval process, based on what they’ve seen so far from the community. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 1:37 PM To: 'Roelof Meijer'; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal I am quite sure Roelof that Strickling means exactly what you said. I think he would be surprised that you would read it the other way since I think he would see the “ending of the contract” as the last day on which it is in effect – which would either be Sept 30 or the date to which the contract is extended. I am also pretty sure that what they are looking for is a realistic estimate so that they only have to do one single extension – not 3 months now and then 3 more and …. In other words he is asking “how long do you REALLY need?” I will note as well the repeat of the requirement for “implementation” – so the question is not “will we approve the changes in Dublin?” which is, to my mind at least, a relatively realistic expectation but rather “how long after the changes are approved in Dublin will it take for them to be implemented?” – that is the Bylaws changed; and IRP set up; and whatever structrures the CCWG and the CWG call for organized and the functions transferred etc. That seems to me like a much harder and more indefinite question to answer Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl] Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:17 AM To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: Lise Fuhr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal What surprises me, is that the letter leaves room for (mis)interpretation on the essential content: “We have never viewed 30 September as a deadline, but have stated from the beginning of this process that the transition planning should proceed to whatever schedule the community sets” is clear and in line with what Mr. Strickling has publicly stated numerous times. It suggests implicitely that the contract will be extended if necessary to fit “whatever schedule the community sets”. However, the bit “..please bear in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified … will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” is not so clear. We probably all assume that “the ending of the contract” refers to either 30 September 2015 or the end date of an (or the last of multiple) extension(s). That is probably a safe assumption, but I fail to understand why Mr. Strickling did not insert a sentence to make that absolutely clear to anyone. Something like: “…prior to 30 September or the date to which the NTIA will extend the present contract to fit the schedule set by the community”. Best, Roelof From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: dinsdag 5 mei 2015 11:13 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal Dear Colleagues, FYI attached is the feedback we have received from Jan Aart Scholte, our independent Advisor. Jan raises some very useful points for our further deliberations. I would suggest we count this as "public comment input #1" and add this to our upcoming public comment analysis tool. Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal Date : Sun, 3 May 2015 14:14:43 +0000 De : Jan Aart Scholte mailto:jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se Pour : Adam Peake mailto:adam.peake@icann.org, CCWG-Advisors mailto:ccwg-advisors@icann.org Dear All Attached the promised more substantive comments for the CCWG on the draft proposal of 1 May 2015. Really impressive that things have got this far already, though as ever there can be suggestions for going further. Greetings Jan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Where would this be covered in the Charter(s)? el On 2015-05-07 20:12 , Drazek, Keith wrote:

I think Paul’s assessment is accurate.

We, the community, will need to develop and recommend a consolidated timeline addressing all of the work-streams and dependencies (CWG, CCWG, ICG, ICANN Board, NTIA) to include the implementation phase described by Secretary Strickling.

To begin such an effort, I’d like to suggest a coordination meeting of the Co-Chairs of the CWG, CCWG and ICG, plus the ICANN Board liaisons from all 3 groups. Perhaps we should also request clarification from NTIA regarding the time needed for their review and approval process, based on what they’ve seen so far from the community.

Regards,

Keith

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Thursday, May 07, 2015 1:37 PM *To:* 'Roelof Meijer'; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* 'Lise Fuhr' *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal

I am quite sure Roelof that Strickling means exactly what you said. I think he would be surprised that you would read it the other way since I think he would see the “ending of the contract” as the last day on which it is in effect – which would either be Sept 30 or the date to which the contract is extended.

I am also pretty sure that what they are looking for is a realistic estimate so that they only have to do one single extension – not 3 months now and then 3 more and …. In other words he is asking “how long do you REALLY need?” I will note as well the repeat of the requirement for “implementation” – so the question is not “will we approve the changes in Dublin?” which is, to my mind at least, a relatively realistic expectation but rather “how long after the changes are approved in Dublin will it take for them to be implemented?” – that is the Bylaws changed; and IRP set up; and whatever structrures the CCWG and the CWG call for organized and the functions transferred etc. That seems to me like a much harder and more indefinite question to answer

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>

*From:*Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl] *Sent:* Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:17 AM *To:* Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Lise Fuhr *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal

What surprises me, is that the letter leaves room for (mis)interpretation on the essential content:

“We have never viewed 30 September as a deadline, but have stated from the beginning of this process that the transition planning should proceed to whatever schedule the community sets” is clear and in line with what Mr. Strickling has publicly stated numerous times. It suggests implicitely that the contract will be extended if necessary to fit “whatever schedule the community sets”.

However, the bit “..please bear in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified … will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” is not so clear.

We probably all assume that “the ending of the contract” refers to either 30 September 2015 or the end date of an (or the last of multiple) extension(s).

That is probably a safe assumption, but I fail to understand why Mr. Strickling did not insert a sentence to make that absolutely clear to anyone. Something like: “…prior to 30 September or the date to which the NTIA will extend the present contract to fit the schedule set by the community”.

Best,

Roelof

*From: *Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> *Reply-To: *Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> *Date: *dinsdag 5 mei 2015 11:13 *To: *"accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal

Dear Colleagues,

FYI attached is the feedback we have received from Jan Aart Scholte, our independent Advisor. Jan raises some very useful points for our further deliberations.

I would suggest we count this as "public comment input #1" and add this to our upcoming public comment analysis tool.

Best Mathieu

-------- Message transféré --------

*Sujet : *

Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal

*Date : *

Sun, 3 May 2015 14:14:43 +0000

*De : *

Jan Aart Scholte <jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se> <mailto:jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se>

*Pour : *

Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> <mailto:adam.peake@icann.org>, CCWG-Advisors <ccwg-advisors@icann.org> <mailto:ccwg-advisors@icann.org>

Dear All

Attached the promised more substantive comments for the CCWG on the draft proposal of 1 May 2015. Really impressive that things have got this far already, though as ever there can be suggestions for going further.

Greetings

Jan

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community