December 2014 - Internal-cg

Links to SSAC Documents
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

SAC-067 in English: <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf> SAC-068 in English: <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-068-en.pdf> Translations of those will be added shortly, and I (and/or Russ) will let you know when they arrive. Patrik

2 2

Happy New Year
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

Dear All HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU , May 2015 be a year of prosperity, success, healthy for you and your family May 2015 be also a year of revolution in ICANN process after almost 16 years of existence. We all have a difficult year before us with challenging tasks to address one of the most complex issue before us . I am confident in putting our efforts and experience together in a friendly, constructive and healthy environment we will achieve what we expected to achieve Good Luck BEST WISHES

10 13

Publication of proposal finalization process
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 5, 2015

Jan. 5, 2015

I think we are about ready to publish the proposal finalization process. The latest version is attached and in Dropbox, in both clean and edited form: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6pgc9ma19fnwf7/proposal-finalization-process-v5-… https://www.dropbox.com/s/zz9idw25dlqllyu/proposal-finalization-process-v5.… I did a little bit of editorial work to enumerate the sections and subsections more clearly. Please reply to this email by 20:00 UTC on December 22 if you support publishing this document or if you have any further comments/edits. Thanks, Alissa

6 14

Telephone conferences January 2015 - Doodle to act on!
by Patrik Fältström Dec. 24, 2014

Dec. 24, 2014

Hi, I would like to send seasonal greetings from Sweden where it is raining more than ever at the moment. Not the best weather for holiday season, but...well...one can not be lucky every year. After talking with the other co-chairs, we have decided to have the first three calls as follows: 7 January, around 20:00 21 January, around 04:00 28 January, around 12:00 This as last call was around 12:00, and we until other agreements continue with our rotation. Please fill out the following Doodle for decision on exact time for the calls: <http://doodle.com/kfrdeudzh97qzpzr> The agenda for the calls will be as follows (might change of course): 7 January: - New secretariat, changed practical things, working methods etc 21 January: - Hopefully we will have got something from the operational communities, and we can have an open discussion about what we have 28 January: - Planning for our f2f meeting in Singapore Best, Patrik Fältström Co-Chair, ICG

1 0

The Middle East’s First Regional Webinar on IANA Stewardship Transition ..
by Manal Ismail Dec. 21, 2014

Dec. 21, 2014

Dear All .. Mohamed and I have been invited to speak at the Middle East’s First Regional Webinar on IANA Stewardship Transition, agenda attached below .. We have compiled the attached slides mainly from ICG agreed slides and documents .. We agreed to split as follows: - Mohamed to talk about the ICG (Mandate, composition, charter, RFP, …) slides 1-11, and - I talk about the proposals and community engagement (expected 3 proposals, importance of community engagement, how to engage, …) slides 12-25 Please let us know if you have any feedback on the attached .. I would also appreciate your views on whether to keep or delete the red bullets on slide 22 (I’m inclined to delete them) and would appreciate any corrections from operational community members on what’s being shared in relation to their processes .. The webinar is tomorrow, Monday, 22 December 2014 at 1600 UTC , apologies for the short notice .. Kind Regards --Manal Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:30 AM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Join Us for the Middle East’s First Regional Webinar on the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN’s Accountability <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-15-en ________________________________ Join Us for the Middle East’s First Regional Webinar on the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN’s Accountability 15 December 2014 The ICANN Middle East team invites you to participate in the first regional webinar on the IANA Stewardship and ICANN's Accountability. There will also be an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. When: Monday, 22 December 2014 at 1600 UTC (for time conversions, please refer to the link at http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/) Where: Adobe Connect at https://icann.adobeconnect.com/meswg and over Telephone/Skype (dial-out numbers can be found online at http://adigo.com/icann/) The call will be conducted in English and there will be real-time Arabic translation. Agenda Time Slot Name Speaker 16.00 – 16.05 Welcome note Baher Esmat, VP, Stakeholder Engagement, Middle East – ICANN 16.05 – 16.25 Overview of the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability processes Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Global Strategy 16.25 – 16.45 The IANA Coordination Group (ICG) Manal Ismail, Director, International Technical Coordination, National Telecom Regulatory Authority – NTRA Mohammed Elbashir, Technical Department Manager – ictQatar 16.45 – 17.25 Q&A Open Floor 17.25 – 17.30 Closing Remarks Baher Esmat, VP, Stakeholder Engagement, Middle East – ICANN Questions and interventions can be made in either language, and can be posted either over the call, or as text in the Adobe Connect room. In order to join the call, you can either: 1.Request for dial-out assistance. Please send your name, a phone number you want to be called at and your language preference to meswg(a)icann.org, no later than 20 December 2014 at 23.59 UTC; or 2.Join by dialing into a toll-free number for your country as shown at http://adigo.com/icann/ either using a telephone or via Skype Call one of the toll-free numbers listed in the same link (toll-free numbers do NOT show an 'L', 'M', or 'T' in front of them). Once you are prompted for the conference code, please enter 47139 if you wish to join the Arabic channel or 83137 if you wish to join the English channel.

2 2

NTIA's Role in Root Zone Management ..
by Manal Ismail Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

The NTIA posted this on its role in Root Zone Management: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_manage… with the following note: "Note: This slide deck is intended to describe NTIA’s role in Root Zone management and does not represent the entirety of the Root Zone management process. Specifically, it does not detail the activities of ICANN or Verisign." Thought to bring it to the attention of the group .. Apologies to those who have already received it through other mailing lists .. Kind Regards --Manal

2 1

Fwd: Proposal finalization process, post-call
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call > Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST > To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > > Please find attached my comments > Kavouss > Pls send it to others as I failed to do that > Kavouss > > 2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net>: > > Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised. > > The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-) > > Thank you Alissa. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >

4 10

U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition
by Adiel Akplogan Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141210_breaking_us_government_funding_bill_… Just read this, and wondering if anyone has more insider information about what it means to this process? My reading is that the transition process cannot start before 30 September 2015. Which in my sense is not that alarming as much as it effectively starts then (it is a transition process). The other part that caught my attention is the fact that the NTIA is required to inform Congress 45 days prior to extending the IANA contract or taking any other decision in regard to it. Which means that the NTIA will have up to the 15th of August 2015 to evaluate the proposal we will submit, in order to present their suggested action to Congress. That gives them only 15 formal days from the time we have planned to submit our proposal. If we build in the 14 days given to ICANN board to assess and deliver this to the NTIA … I don’t see how we will achieve the target without putting emphasis right now on the fact that our published timeline has to be executed as a waterfalls process where many things has to be done in parallel, particularly toward then end. - a.

7 8

Session(s) in Singapore
by Patrik Fältström Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

All, We must do scheduling in Singapore. Part from our meeting that start at 9AM on Friday as announced earlier, I have also heard some interest in yet another open session with the community. My suggestion is to have a session in Singapore where we offer time for the various operational communities that have or will send input to us to explain what they have done (so far). The session would be 3x30 min (15 min presentation plus 15 min Q&A) plus 30 min for over all Q&A. I.e. 120 min. What do you think? Patrik

8 10

Re: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Accountability
by Kavouss Arasteh Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Dear All, In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the accountability whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA .However, should the Board has any comment, they may send it separately to NTIA In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case. I am worried about that. I mentioned that in virtual meeting to all CCWG Regards Kavouss 2014-12-14 17:49 GMT+01:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com>: > > Wolf-Ulrich, > > > > I totally agree with you that this will have to be discussed. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben > *Sent:* Sunday, December 14, 2014 9:20 AM > *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith > *Cc:* ICG; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability > > > > I agree that close coordination is needed at least between the > CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. In addition with respect to > the timeline coordination is needed with the ICG. > > > > The respective charters of CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability make > reference that > > << > > Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., > implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within > the scope of the CWG-Stewardship > > >> > > What makes me a bit nervous is the timeline for workstream 1 (WS1) of > CCWG-Accountability focusing on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability > that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA > Stewardship Transition. At the time being submission of WS1 is scheduled > for June 2014. However the Stewardship transition proposals (from > CWG-Stewardship) are expected by Jan 2014. > > > > I’m not fully clear what the potential impact on the overall timeline may > be. But this should be discussed – and coordinated – between the various > groups’ leaderships. > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:49 AM > > *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> > > *Cc:* accountability-ccg-members(a)icann.org ; gac-iana-cgroup(a)icann.org ; > ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability > > > > Alissa, > > Thank you very much for your message. > > I will participate in CCWG ,for the time being and until the GAC chair > make different rarrangements, as A PARTICIPANT. When I intervene, I make it > clear that I am speaking on that capacity, should I need to intervene as > ICG,as I made once, indicating that the deadline for Workstream 1 should > meet and match with time lines that ICG established. > > What I can inform you now as ICG Liaison is that the course of action > being taken does not correspond to the expectation of the overall > accountabilty and there is insufficient coordination between CWG and CCWG > workstream 1. > > Infact what ICG awaiting on accountability for its current activities ON > NAMES should be fed from CWG and not CCWG. > > tHE Scope of activities of CCWG on accountabilty is currently norrowed > down to collection of information from the past expereince and not > addressing the fundamental issue of accountability ,if and only if, NTIA > transfers the stewardship of IANA functions to Global Multistakeholder > which would certainly bedifferent from the existing structure and mechanism > of ICANN . > > We should all remember that currently ICANN is accountable to NTIA.To > which entity ICANN would be accountable after transition, it is not yet > clear. Certainly ,ICANN would not be accountable to ICANN .tHERE MUST BE A > WORKABLE MECHANISM to which ICANN would be accountable .This is a fact and > reality. > > By the way, I was not voluteer to be Liason at CCWG, i WAS VOLUNTEERED FOR > cwg, YOU ASKED ME TO WITHDRAW FROM CWG and I respected your request > > tks > > Kavouss > > > > > > > > 2014-12-12 21:26 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>: > > I would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in > the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I > will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from > the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on > behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate > actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity. > There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps! > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > > > As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to > participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG > liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its > representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the > other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it > clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf > of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information > from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s > representation in the CCWG. > > > > As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting > transcript: > http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf ) > the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information > back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the > transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we > think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not > been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had > good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on > our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to > specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf. > > > > If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison or > rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison > will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG. > > > > Best, > > Alissa > > > > On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people > wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most > crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . > > However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am > not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter > to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively > participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest > ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical > dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew > ). > > This is not fair nor acceptable > > I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple > communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. > > We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle > in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not > actively contribute > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >

3 2

Fwd: Proposal finalization process, post-call
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call > Date: December 12, 2014 at 7:25:22 AM PST > To: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > > Alissa > It does not confusion on the contrary it. Clearly explain the scope and objectives of the matter . > Pls thus retain that word > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 10 Dec 2014, at 22:04, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >> >> There was one topic that I failed to include in the email below: >> >> — As a follow-on to the discussion of 2b, Elise suggested in the chat removing the word “independent” from 2b. This whole phrase comes from our charter, but I don’t think it would hurt to remove that single word, if it’s causing confusion. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >>> >>> Attached and in Dropbox <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohtn5rbalvo8piu/proposal-finalization-process-v4-…> is proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc.docx, which reflects the discussion we had on the call and suggestions made on the list. I have removed comments and accepted edits that were provided prior to the call and were non-controversial in steps 1, 2, and 5 (since those were the sections we discussed). >>> >>> If you have further comments on this document, please send them to the list by 20:00 UTC on December 12. I will incorporate further comments received and then hopefully we will be ready to initiate a consensus call for publication on the mailing list. >>> >>> A couple of my own comments: >>> >>> — Please take a look at the new introduction text which is provided to address Adiel’s comment about timeliness. >>> >>> — I assume that people are comfortable with the text in 2(c) regarding testing, but please comment if not, it’s possible that we didn’t discuss it today due to lack of time more than lack of interest. >>> >>> — In section 4, Wolf-Ulrich had a comment that we did not have time to discuss: >>> >>> "Can we define “broad public support”? Isn’t here ICG’s coordination role required in a way to bring together those who object with the respective OC?” >>> >>> First, I think if NTIA chooses to further articulate what it means by broad public support, we could certainly use that further definition. Otherwise I think we need to go with a plain English reading, i.e., most people and communities that we hear from are in favor. >>> >>> Second, I think we can certainly encourage people with objections to get involved in the operational communities. I view this as a subset of what we have been doing all along, which is encouraging all interested parties to be involved in the operational community processes, so I’m not sure that it needs to be re-stated here. >>> >>> Best, >>> Alissa >>> >>> <proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc.docx>_______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

FW: [bwg+] Cromnibus blocks NTIA from transitioning IANA
by Milton L Mueller Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Here is an anonymized message from someone more familiar with the ways of Washington: -----Original Message----- I think it's pretty much a done deal. This document is the product of negotiations involving both House and Senate leaders, and it needs to be approved by both House and Senate *today*. So there's going to be huge pressure not to make any changes at all; even small changes have to potential to unravel things, prevent passage by the end of the day, and thus bring about a government shutdown.

2 1

Proposal finalization process, post-call
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Attached and in Dropbox <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohtn5rbalvo8piu/proposal-finalization-process-v4-…> is proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc.docx, which reflects the discussion we had on the call and suggestions made on the list. I have removed comments and accepted edits that were provided prior to the call and were non-controversial in steps 1, 2, and 5 (since those were the sections we discussed). If you have further comments on this document, please send them to the list by 20:00 UTC on December 12. I will incorporate further comments received and then hopefully we will be ready to initiate a consensus call for publication on the mailing list. A couple of my own comments: — Please take a look at the new introduction text which is provided to address Adiel’s comment about timeliness. — I assume that people are comfortable with the text in 2(c) regarding testing, but please comment if not, it’s possible that we didn’t discuss it today due to lack of time more than lack of interest. — In section 4, Wolf-Ulrich had a comment that we did not have time to discuss: "Can we define “broad public support”? Isn’t here ICG’s coordination role required in a way to bring together those who object with the respective OC?” First, I think if NTIA chooses to further articulate what it means by broad public support, we could certainly use that further definition. Otherwise I think we need to go with a plain English reading, i.e., most people and communities that we hear from are in favor. Second, I think we can certainly encourage people with objections to get involved in the operational communities. I view this as a subset of what we have been doing all along, which is encouraging all interested parties to be involved in the operational community processes, so I’m not sure that it needs to be re-stated here. Best, Alissa

4 4

Re: [Internal-cg] U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition
by Joseph Alhadeff Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

There was a post by Phil Corwin on circle ID providing some more info... I'm not in a position to forward now... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko(a)piuha.net] Received: Thursday, 11 Dec 2014, 3:51PM To: Adiel Akplogan [adiel(a)afrinic.net] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] U.S. Government Funding Bill & ANA Transition I certainly do not have any inside information. My opinion, however, is that it probably serves us well to be calm and not too affected by political debates. It is important that we get the transition right, and we will. Lets continue. Events like this are only underlining the need for the transition. Jari

2 1

FYI: "Numbers" Progress
by Daniel Karrenberg Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Initial consultations of the regional communities are complete. The CRISP team has started its work on the "numbers" proposal this week. You can find all information on this process, agendas, minutes and documents at https://www.nro.net/crisp-team . CRISP team meetings are open for observers. Daniel

1 0

Call #9 - Archives
by Alice Jansen Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Dear ICG Members, For your information - Below you will find links to call # 9 archives (see - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-archives-2014-07-31-en) Agenda - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/agenda-icg-10dec14-en.pdf Chat transcript - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-chat-icg-10dec14-en.… Recording EN - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-en.mp3 Recording ES - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-es.mp3 Recording FR - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-fr.mp3 Recording RU - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-ru.mp3 Recording PT - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-pt.mp3 Recording ZH - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-zh.mp3 Recording AR - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-10dec14-ar.mp3 Transcripts of the audio recordings will be posted as soon as available. Thanks Best regards Alice

1 0

Roll Call - ICG Call #9 - 10 December
by Alice Jansen Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Dear ICG Members, Please flag any inconsistencies you may notice (off list). We will share call archives as soon as available. Thanks! Best regards Alice ICG Members Adiel Akplogan (NRO) Jari Arkko (IETF) James Bladel (GNSO) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Jandyr Dos Santos (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Russ Housley (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Michael Niebel (GAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Apologies Joseph Alhadeff (ICC BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Liaisons Elise Gerich Kuo-Wei Wu Support Samantha Dickinson Eric Evrard Alice Jansen Ergys Ramaj Theresa Swinehart

2 1

Proposal finalization process v4 - Seeking clarification on step 3 ..
by Manal Ismail Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Appreciate clarification on the highlighted part of the following sentence: "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments addressed within their components before assembling an interim final proposal." Are components here equivalent to proposals? Does the sentence mean: "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments on their components addressed before assembling an interim final proposal."? Kind Regards -Manal

2 1

Draft action items from 9th ICG teleconference, 10 December 2014
by Samantha Dickinson Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Below are the draft action items from today's teleconference for the review of ICG members: 1. Following the incorporation of an amendment requested by Karrenberg, Jansen to publish minutes of 26 November teleconference on the ICG website. 2. Akplogan to forward communication related to developments and delays in the process of finalizing the ICG Secretariat to all members of the Secretariat selection sub-committee. 3. Cooper to update latest version of Proposal Finalization Process document (proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk.docx) based on feedback on the teleconference. 4. ICG members to provide any further comments on the Proposal Finalization Process document on the internal-cg mailing list within the next day with the aim of enabling the document to be finalized and published within the following few days. Regards Sam

1 0

Proposal finalization process v4
by Alissa Cooper Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

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%20pr…>. 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.” 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. 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. 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. 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. 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?” 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. Step 5: I have made the latest changes suggested on the list by Milton, which I think address everyone’s concerns. Alissa

6 9

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

Agenda for call #8
by Patrik Fältström Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

Next call, #8, on Wednesday, 26 November 02:00-03:00 UTC we will discuss: * Discussion of proposal submission expectations - Lynn * Updates from the communities - Chair Regards, Patrik Fältström Co-Chair

15 29

Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
by Joseph Alhadeff Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

+1 on both publication and kudos for job well done Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary Uduma [mnuduma(a)yahoo.com] Received: Monday, 01 Dec 2014, 4:39PM To: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de] Drazek, Keith [kdrazek(a)verisign.com] internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. +1 and thank you Manal for your hard work. Mary Uduma On Monday, December 1, 2014 9:47 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> wrote: #yiv4716653673 v\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 o\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 w\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 .yiv4716653673shape {}#yiv4716653673 #yiv4716653673 -- _filtered #yiv4716653673 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4716653673 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv4716653673 #yiv4716653673 p.yiv4716653673MsoNormal, #yiv4716653673 li.yiv4716653673MsoNormal, #yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:right;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 a:link, #yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4716653673 a:visited, #yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4716653673 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 p.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate, #yiv4716653673 li.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate, #yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:right;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673BalloonTextChar {}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle20 {color:windowtext;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle21 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle22 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle23 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle24 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 .yiv4716653673MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv4716653673 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673WordSection1 {}#yiv4716653673 I agree, too, Manal. Thanks very much for your work! Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 8:51 PMTo: mailto:internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Agreed. I support publishing the FAQs. Thanks to Manal for leading this effort. Best, Keith #2 From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 10:50 AM To: 'Manal Ismail'; 'WUKnoben'; 'internal-cg(a)icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Manal, Thanks for your persistence in developing this document. In my opinion, if it is to remain relevant it needs to be published immediately. I have no objections to any part of it at this time. From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 8:02 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions
by Jon Nevett Dec. 1, 2014

Dec. 1, 2014

FYI > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> > Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions > > > > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-28-en > > IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions > 28 November 2014 > Chairs' Statement with progress update and route ahead > Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson > > Following on from the face-to-face meeting of the Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions in Frankfurt, Germany on 19 – 20 November 2014, the CWG has continued to make good progress. > > An initial draft of the Proposal from the CWG was published on the CWG mailing list on 26 November 2014 and this was discussed by the CWG in a scheduled meeting on 27 November 2014. The meeting had a number of points on the agenda but focussed substantially on two key areas: > > RFP3 - The content of the initial draft proposal from the CWG which relates to item 3 in the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). > Key questions / issues to be addressed in public comment - the prospective specific questions or issues that the CWG would like to see addressed as part of the public comment on the draft proposal. > It was also discussed that while the initial draft proposal from the CWG represents a good platform on which to build, there remains significant opportunity for refinement and development by the CWG based on a range of inputs including that from the public comment. > > We believe that the key building blocks are in place to produce a timely response to the ICG RFP but recognise the need to remain vigilant on all aspects of the timetable and project plan. > > Mindful of the timetable, the next steps in the process are as follows: > > Identify proposed changes in the initial draft of the Proposal from the CWG by 12h00 UTC in 29 November 2014. > Integrate changes into the initial draft of the Proposal from the CWG such that it becomes a draft of the Proposal from the CWG published for public comment on 1 December 2014. > Continue to work as a CWG in parallel with public comment period including developing areas of the document relating to items 4, 5 & 6 of the RFP from the ICG. > Recognise that final substantial inputs to the proposal will need to be complete by the end of the weekend of 10/11 January 2015 such that the week following is focussed solely on refining the proposal document. > Ensure widespread awareness of the draft and the key milestones of the CWG including ensuring that all chartering organisations recognise the 19-30 January 2015 time slot for approving the proposal. > We also note that a particular area of attention for the CWG is to ensure effective coordination with the parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. To that end, the CWG co-chairs met on 28 November 2014 with the co-chairs of the drafting team on Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, at least one of whom (Thomas Rickert) we understand will remain as a co-chair of the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. Recognising that the two cross community groups are at different points in their work, it was discussed that the CWG on Naming Related Functions could make a contribution to the CCWG on Accountability by assisting to identify accountability mechanisms that are necessary conditions for the stewardship transition. To this end, we (the co-chairs of the CWG) plan to work with our CWG to identify such necessary conditions for transmission to the CCWG on Accountability in order to assist their work and moreover, to coordinate with the co-chairs of the CCWG on Accountability on an ongoing basis. > > > >

1 0

Transition and the "Kelly Bill".
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Dec. 1, 2014

Dec. 1, 2014

Colleagues, I found this article interesting: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/28/laws-sausages-and-the-iana-tra… Jean-Jacques.

1 0