Dear all, Please find included email letter from Byron and Jonathan Robinson, chair of the GNSO to the chair of the ICG ( and members on ICG appointed by ccNSO and GNSO). Byron asked me to forward it to you. It is par tof the material around the IANA Stewardship Transition Process, Kind regards, Bart ============================ From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:'alissa@cooperw.in>'; 'mbashir@mbash.net<mailto:'mbashir@mbash.net>'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com<mailto:'mnuduma@yahoo.com>'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk>); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; 'keith@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:'keith@internetnz.net.nz>' Subject: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG Importance: High 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