FW: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG
All. Please see below. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in'; 'mbashir@mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; '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
Hi, Are we meeting with the ICG in LA? avri On 24-Sep-14 10:24, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All.
Please see below.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in'; 'mbashir@mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; '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
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
There is no meeting planned. Based on one of their last calls, my understanding is that the ICG is not meeting separately with any groups in LA. On 9/24/14 12:33 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are we meeting with the ICG in LA?
avri
On 24-Sep-14 10:24, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All.
Please see below.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in'; 'mbashir@mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; '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
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi, thanks for this. I was told they wanted to meet with us and we had rejected the offer. I understand they are meeting with GAC and ALAC. Not the whole group, but part. I am confused. avri On 24-Sep-14 13:36, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
There is no meeting planned.
Based on one of their last calls, my understanding is that the ICG is not meeting separately with any groups in LA.
On 9/24/14 12:33 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are we meeting with the ICG in LA?
avri
On 24-Sep-14 10:24, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All.
Please see below.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in'; 'mbashir@mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; '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
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
I went through the ICG mailing list archives, and it appears that the ICG may accept formal requests for meetings in LA: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001711.html> But there still seems to be discussion about this, and it doesn't seem to be final. Also, it looks like Milton is supportive of meeting with the CWG: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001730.html> Perhaps we should reach out to the ICG and ask for clarification? On 9/24/14 5:03 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
thanks for this.
I was told they wanted to meet with us and we had rejected the offer. I understand they are meeting with GAC and ALAC. Not the whole group, but part.
I am confused.
avri
On 24-Sep-14 13:36, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
There is no meeting planned.
Based on one of their last calls, my understanding is that the ICG is not meeting separately with any groups in LA.
On 9/24/14 12:33 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are we meeting with the ICG in LA?
avri
On 24-Sep-14 10:24, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All.
Please see below.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in'; 'mbashir@mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; '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
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
While I have no objections to meeting with the ICG in Los Angeles, I would not want to use the scant 90 minutes we have set aside in the busy ICANN schedule to do this. Since the CWG has yet to be formally constituted, there is little that we can actually tell them. The four ccNSO representatives will be briefing the ccNSO during our meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and I suspect others will be doing the same thing. I think we can all inform ourselves about where they bare as the ICG's process is already quite open and well documented. At this point, I would prefer to use the time allocated on the Monday to getting on with the job of developing a proposal. If they want to meet at another time, that would be fine by me. Later in the week might mean that we got some work done so we might have something to tell them! Allan -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: September-24-14 5:22 PM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] FW: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG I went through the ICG mailing list archives, and it appears that the ICG may accept formal requests for meetings in LA: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001711.html> But there still seems to be discussion about this, and it doesn't seem to be final. Also, it looks like Milton is supportive of meeting with the CWG: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001730.html> Perhaps we should reach out to the ICG and ask for clarification? On 9/24/14 5:03 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
thanks for this.
I was told they wanted to meet with us and we had rejected the offer. I understand they are meeting with GAC and ALAC. Not the whole group, but part.
I am confused.
avri
On 24-Sep-14 13:36, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
There is no meeting planned.
Based on one of their last calls, my understanding is that the ICG is not meeting separately with any groups in LA.
On 9/24/14 12:33 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are we meeting with the ICG in LA?
avri
On 24-Sep-14 10:24, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All.
Please see below.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in'; 'mbashir@mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; '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
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
I agree with Allan. Unless we have some very clearly identified questions for the ICG that have not already been answered, and I am not aware of any, I don't see any reason for the meeting. Avri - are you aware of any questions we have for the ICG that haven't already been addressed? If so, could those be asked via email? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad; Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] FW: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG While I have no objections to meeting with the ICG in Los Angeles, I would not want to use the scant 90 minutes we have set aside in the busy ICANN schedule to do this. Since the CWG has yet to be formally constituted, there is little that we can actually tell them. The four ccNSO representatives will be briefing the ccNSO during our meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and I suspect others will be doing the same thing. I think we can all inform ourselves about where they bare as the ICG's process is already quite open and well documented. At this point, I would prefer to use the time allocated on the Monday to getting on with the job of developing a proposal. If they want to meet at another time, that would be fine by me. Later in the week might mean that we got some work done so we might have something to tell them! Allan -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: September-24-14 5:22 PM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] FW: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG I went through the ICG mailing list archives, and it appears that the ICG may accept formal requests for meetings in LA: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001711.html> But there still seems to be discussion about this, and it doesn't seem to be final. Also, it looks like Milton is supportive of meeting with the CWG: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001730.html> Perhaps we should reach out to the ICG and ask for clarification? On 9/24/14 5:03 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
thanks for this.
I was told they wanted to meet with us and we had rejected the offer. I understand they are meeting with GAC and ALAC. Not the whole group, but part.
I am confused.
avri
On 24-Sep-14 13:36, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
There is no meeting planned.
Based on one of their last calls, my understanding is that the ICG is not meeting separately with any groups in LA.
On 9/24/14 12:33 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are we meeting with the ICG in LA?
avri
On 24-Sep-14 10:24, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All.
Please see below.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in'; 'mbashir@mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; '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
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
On 24-Sep-14 18:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - are you aware of any questions we have for the ICG that haven't already been addressed? If so, could those be asked via email?
ok. I understand from the letter that Jonathan sent that we are telling them we won't be ready with the deliverable on schedule. And I agree. Might have been worth talking over. Also assuming everyone already on the CWG is happy with their instructions, then I guess there is nothing to discuss with them. I am not arguing you/we must, I was just getting crossed signals, and figured I would check. I have checked. avri
Hi Avri, The letter notes that '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'. My presumption is that the RFP and any possible questions / clarifications will be one of the first items the CWG may want to deal with, but we'll only know if there are any questions once the CWG has had an opportunity to meet. Best regards, Marika On 25/09/14 04:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 24-Sep-14 18:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - are you aware of any questions we have for the ICG that haven't already been addressed? If so, could those be asked via email?
ok.
I understand from the letter that Jonathan sent that we are telling them we won't be ready with the deliverable on schedule. And I agree.
Might have been worth talking over.
Also assuming everyone already on the CWG is happy with their instructions, then I guess there is nothing to discuss with them.
I am not arguing you/we must, I was just getting crossed signals, and figured I would check. I have checked.
avri _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi, Of course the CWG can't have questions as a WG until after it has met. But it was possible that the individual members might have had questions and that a public discussion would have made the meeting worthwhile. But I apologize for creating all this confusion over a meeting the already selected members of CWG do not want to have. I don't quite understand, but I accept it. BTW, does the actual CWG have a list yet? avri On 25-Sep-14 04:03, Marika Konings wrote:
Hi Avri,
The letter notes that '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'. My presumption is that the RFP and any possible questions / clarifications will be one of the first items the CWG may want to deal with, but we'll only know if there are any questions once the CWG has had an opportunity to meet.
Best regards,
Marika
On 25/09/14 04:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 24-Sep-14 18:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - are you aware of any questions we have for the ICG that haven't already been addressed? If so, could those be asked via email?
ok.
I understand from the letter that Jonathan sent that we are telling them we won't be ready with the deliverable on schedule. And I agree.
Might have been worth talking over.
Also assuming everyone already on the CWG is happy with their instructions, then I guess there is nothing to discuss with them.
I am not arguing you/we must, I was just getting crossed signals, and figured I would check. I have checked.
avri _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi Avri, The mailing list for the CWG is not active yet. The list of members and observers is available on the Wiki at <https://community.icann.org/x/1QrxAg> On 9/25/14 8:01 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Of course the CWG can't have questions as a WG until after it has met. But it was possible that the individual members might have had questions and that a public discussion would have made the meeting worthwhile.
But I apologize for creating all this confusion over a meeting the already selected members of CWG do not want to have. I don't quite understand, but I accept it.
BTW, does the actual CWG have a list yet?
avri
On 25-Sep-14 04:03, Marika Konings wrote:
Hi Avri,
The letter notes that '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'. My presumption is that the RFP and any possible questions / clarifications will be one of the first items the CWG may want to deal with, but we'll only know if there are any questions once the CWG has had an opportunity to meet.
Best regards,
Marika
On 25/09/14 04:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 24-Sep-14 18:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri - are you aware of any questions we have for the ICG that haven't already been addressed? If so, could those be asked via email?
ok.
I understand from the letter that Jonathan sent that we are telling them we won't be ready with the deliverable on schedule. And I agree.
Might have been worth talking over.
Also assuming everyone already on the CWG is happy with their instructions, then I guess there is nothing to discuss with them.
I am not arguing you/we must, I was just getting crossed signals, and figured I would check. I have checked.
avri _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi, Ok. I am not even part of the group yet, though I expect to be. But if people don't think they are ready to talk them, so be it. avri On 24-Sep-14 17:50, Allan MacGillivray wrote:
While I have no objections to meeting with the ICG in Los Angeles, I would not want to use the scant 90 minutes we have set aside in the busy ICANN schedule to do this. Since the CWG has yet to be formally constituted, there is little that we can actually tell them. The four ccNSO representatives will be briefing the ccNSO during our meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and I suspect others will be doing the same thing. I think we can all inform ourselves about where they bare as the ICG's process is already quite open and well documented. At this point, I would prefer to use the time allocated on the Monday to getting on with the job of developing a proposal. If they want to meet at another time, that would be fine by me. Later in the week might mean that we got some work done so we might have something to tell them!
Allan
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: September-24-14 5:22 PM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] FW: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG
I went through the ICG mailing list archives, and it appears that the ICG may accept formal requests for meetings in LA: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001711.html>
But there still seems to be discussion about this, and it doesn't seem to be final. Also, it looks like Milton is supportive of meeting with the CWG: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001730.html>
Perhaps we should reach out to the ICG and ask for clarification?
On 9/24/14 5:03 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
thanks for this.
I was told they wanted to meet with us and we had rejected the offer. I understand they are meeting with GAC and ALAC. Not the whole group, but part.
I am confused.
avri
On 24-Sep-14 13:36, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
There is no meeting planned.
Based on one of their last calls, my understanding is that the ICG is not meeting separately with any groups in LA.
On 9/24/14 12:33 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are we meeting with the ICG in LA?
avri
On 24-Sep-14 10:24, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All.
Please see below.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa@cooperw.in'; 'mbashir@mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma@yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; '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
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
participants (6)
-
Allan MacGillivray -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jonathan Robinson -
Marika Konings