December 2014 - Internal-cg

REMINDER - ICG Call #9 - 10 December at 11:00 UTC
by Alice Jansen Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #9 is scheduled for: **TODAY** at 11:00-12:00 UTC See timezone conversion at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICG+Call+%239&iso=… Link to announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-04-en You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. In you cannot find it, please send me an email (off-list) and I will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: [cid:FB9AFEBD-4B73-4B3F-A16A-3D4355EADF8B] If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let me know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda circulated by Alissa: * Minutes approval for Nov 26 call * Secretariat update * Proposal finalization process * ICANN 52 logistics We would be very grateful if you could also state your name when speaking as the call will be recorded, transcribed and interpreted. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thanks, Best regards Alice

2 1

Draft minutes of ICG teleconference #8, 26 November
by Samantha Dickinson Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

The draft minutes of the most recent teleconference are now available on Dropbox at: <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ziqk2jjzltmie2p/minutes-teleconference-26-novembe…> Please note that the discussion on the role of the ICANN Board in the handling of the final proposal seemed to be a sensitive issue, so the minutes of that discussion are documented in more detailed form. Regards Sam

5 5

Proposal finalization process v3
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of the proposal finalization process document. Joe did the heavy lifting to incorporate edits based on our discussion in LA. I have also incorporate the appropriate section of Lynn’s text concerning the role of ICANN in the submission process. However, I think the full list of Lynn’s bullets belong in a separate statement that is specifically about expectations concerning ICANN/ICANN Board/NTIA participation during the entire transition plan development process. I think the attached document should remain focused on proposal finalization, and ultimately the content of section 4 should directly reflect the appropriate portion of whatever final content emerges from the thread that Lynn started. Feedback is of course welcome, and there are a few comments in the document from Joe and myself that are worth discussion. I have attached a clean copy; a redlined version is also available in Dropbox. Thanks, Alissa

11 27

Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v4
by Joseph Alhadeff Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

+1 Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal(a)tra.gov.eg] Received: Wednesday, 10 Dec 2014, 7:52AM To: Alissa Cooper [alissa(a)cooperw.in] ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v4 Many thanks Alissa and everyone else for the comments .. I almost agree to all and have included my own inline below .. Apologies for the late sending .. Looking forward to further discuss on the call .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:20 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v4 I have consolidated the comments and edits from Milton, Adiel, Joe, and Russ in the attached v4 <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization% 20process>. I accepted changes on all the text where no one had commented for easier reading. I also inserted a few comments/edits of my own the proposed changes, which I repeat below. Step 1a, bullet 3: Milton suggested using "Whether the proposal obtained consensus" instead of "How the proposal obtained consensus." I am fine with "whether." I would also be fine with "Whether and how." In the RFP, we ask the communities to explain "the steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine consensus." I would consider a list of those steps to be the "how." [MI]: I'm fine with either .. Although I think the point is that we want to ensure 'Whether' the proposal obtained consensus (the steps of which will describe 'How' of course as you rightly mentioned) yet we do not have agreed detailed criteria to evaluate the 'How' steps .. so maybe we should not be focusing on the steps and be more concerned with the result .. Step 1b: Adiel suggested adding a bullet about timeliness. I do not think this is actionable and so should not be included. If we get a proposal after the target deadline, I do not believe we are in a position to do anything other than start conducting the assessment in step 1. Of course, if we get a proposal many weeks/months after the target deadline, it will create some chaos for all of the steps afterward, but I don't really see a lot of value in specifying how we will handle every possible case of that sort that could arise depending on the exact timing and sequence of the arrival of the component proposals. [MI]: Agree with your reasons for not adding this .. Step 2: Adiel questioned whether the statement that the ICG's role "is not to draft a single transition proposal" is accurate. I believe it is accurate, in the sense that we are not "drafting" or writing anything of our own. I added the words "of its own" to the end of that phrase to try to make this more clear. [MI]: Agree with you but also see Adiel's point .. The draft is misleading until you finish reading whole sentence, which is fine for me .. But I can suggest the following alternative: "According to the ICG Charter, its role is to assemble a single transition proposal from component proposals, not to draft its own." Step 2: Adiel questioned the use of the word "unifying." I agree that "unifying" and "uniform" are confusing. I believe our task is one of assembly. Our goal is to end up with one document, but not to massage the text of the component proposals to achieve "unity." I have replaced the word "unified" in this section with the word "single" to make this clear. [MI]: Agree with you and Adiel .. Step 2a: Joe inserted "possibly conflicting" as a qualifier for "overlaps" I don't understand what a conflicting overlap is, and I think the proposals need to have a coherent story about all overlaps. So I disagree with this addition. [MI]: I noted the rest of the discussion on this in later emails .. So basically you and Joe are saying the same thing, whether, in case of overlaps, the different proposals are suggesting the same or conflicting things .. Yet I would suggest saying here "any conflicting overlaps" rather than "all possibly conflicting overlaps" .. The reason is that the latter gives the feeling that we already expect overlaps and we already expect that those overlaps are suggesting conflicting proposals .. Is this the case? Or have I misunderstood it? Step 2b: Joe asked whether we need to cross-reference the ICANN accountability work. I think this is already covered by the fact that we are already asking "Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?" [MI]: In fact, I have a question on the second part stating: "Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?" .. How are we going to handle such gaps? Will we go back to the relevant operational community only and they coordinate with CCWG-Accountability if necessary or we will coordinate directly with both? Step 2c: There has been list discussion between Joe and Russ about testing. I suggested some text as a middle ground approach. In the RFP we do ask the communities to describe any testing they do. I'm not quite sure how the test results could conflict with each other or otherwise be problematic in combination, but I'm happy to check for that when we're assembling the single proposal. [MI]: I'm fine with the new text you proposed for Step 2c .. [MI]: Step 3: I have a problem understanding the highlighted part of this sentence: "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments addressed within their components before assembling an interim final proposal." Is this meant to say: - "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments on their components addressed before assembling an interim final proposal."? OR - "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments addressed within their communities before assembling an interim final proposal." Step 5: I have made the latest changes suggested on the list by Milton, which I think address everyone's concerns. [MI]: Agree with Milton's proposed text, but I have 2 remarks: - I'm more inclined to concatenate the first 2 bullets (5.a & 5.b) into one that reads "The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site and transmit it to the ICANN Board." .. The rationale is that I feel those are simultaneous steps whereas as the bullets stands now they give the feeling that those are 2 sequential steps that may have a period of time in between .. - I'm also inclined to precede bullet 5.c with "As conveyed/communicated by the ICANN Board," .. so the whole sentence would read " As conveyed/communicated by the ICANN Board, the Board will send the final proposal to NTIA without making any changes within 14 days of receiving the proposal from the ICG. Any accompanying letter will be posted publicly " .. The rationale here is, rather than speaking on behalf of the Board or say that we are expecting, that we accurately describe the situation .. This is what was conveyed to us from the Board .. Not sure though, language wise, whether it's better/more accurate to say convey, communicate or something else .. Alissa ________________________________

1 0

Fwd: Please review: proposal finalization process
by Adiel Akplogan Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Adiel Akplogan <adiel(a)afrinic.net> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process > Date: December 9, 2014 at 21:53:25 PM GMT+4 > To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > > I have directly added my comments to the document and updated a new version to Drop Box. > > thanks. > > - a. > > On Dec 8, 2014, at 19:44 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > >> All, >> >> Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call or shortly thereafter. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> Begin forwarded message: >

1 0

Draft agenda for ICG call #9, 10 Dec 11-12 UTC
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Here is a draft agenda for our next call: * Minutes approval for Nov 26 call * Secretariat update * Proposal finalization process * ICANN 52 logistics It would be great if we could finish the proposal finalization process on the call or shortly thereafter, so please have a look at the recent thread <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-December/002289.html> and proposed edits <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pr…> and send your comments to the mailing list before the call. Thanks, Alissa

3 2

Rép: Re: Please review: proposal finalization process
by jjs Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

I agree with the improvements suggested by Kavouss and Milton. Jean-Jacques. Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> a écrit : >I agree with the intent of Jean-Jacques’ proposed modification and with Arasteh’s modification of it. The language however is a bit redundant at the end, and we need to work more directly from the clear, step by step language that Alissa has already put into the document. So how about this: > > >a. The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site. > >b. The ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board. > > > >c. The ICANN Board will send the final proposal to NTIA without making any changes within 14 days of receiving the proposal from the ICG. Any accompanying letter will be posted publicly. > > > >d. If the ICANN Board has an issue with the proposal, the ICG understands that the ICANN Board will have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment. > >--MM > >From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:58 AM >To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >Cc: ICG >Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process > >Dear Alisa >I agree with Jean Jacques but suggesting to replace the word "expects "to "understands "due to the fact that our views is more than an expectation >Regards >Kavouss > >2014-12-09 12:21 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs(a)dyalog.net<mailto:jjs@dyalog.net>>: >Alissa, > >with reference to 4e, the ICG has no authority to say what the ICANN Board should or should not do. We can only express a wish or a firm expectation. Therefore, 4d and 4e should be collapsed into one, and reformulated as follows: > >"The ICG expects the ICANN Board to send the final proposal to the NTIA within 14 days of receipt, without making any changes to the proposal. If the ICANN Board were to have an issue with the proposal, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment. In the latter case, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would not modify the proposal, but would send it with a letter of transmission to be made public." > >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- >De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >À: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark(a)accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au>> >Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> >Envoyé: Mardi 9 Décembre 2014 10:51:33 >Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process > > > > >Alissa, >I saw a document with several track changes accompanied by you explanatory Note . >Then I asked myself the followings\ >What are these changes ? >Who made them? >why they were made? >WHAT WAS THE REASONS TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES? >if I misunderstood the issue, pls correct me >Regards >Kavouss > > >2014-12-09 3:05 GMT+01:00 Narelle Clark < narelle.clark(a)accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au> > : > > > > > > > > >I seem to have missed the part where we agreed that the ICANN board needed to send a letter of endorsement or otherwise. Surely as a body independent of the ICG they can do whatever they see fit (and ought to). > > > >Why does it need to be referred to here? > > > >I can see a point in inc

1 0

Telephone conference Dec 10
by Patrik Fältström Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

All, Just to remind everyone that the next call will be on Dec 10 at 11:00-12:00 UTC. Doodle results can be viewed here: <http://doodle.com/fq2w2tf476pdbszi> Regards, Patrik

4 5

Liaisons to CCWG Accountability
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Thomas, Mathieu, As the CCWG is preparing to meet, I wanted to confirm for you that there are two ICG members who have volunteered to serve as liaisons to the CCWG so that they can report back to the ICG on CCWG activities: Kavouss Arasteh and Keith Drazek. These two volunteered when the ICG met in October in Los Angeles (see section 4 of https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/minutes-icg-17oct14-en.pdf) Best, Alissa

1 0

FAQ update ..
by Manal Ismail Dec. 4, 2014

Dec. 4, 2014

Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal

10 19