July 2014 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Public session at ICANN 51?
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) … Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.) How long should the session be? 90 minutes? I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen. Thanks, Alissa

16 27

Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on
by Patrik Fältström Aug. 12, 2014

Aug. 12, 2014

All, I have investigated who are on the mailing list, and also asked ICANN Staff to provide a list of the participants in the ICG work. When I compared the two lists, I found some differences, and the difference is that more people are subscribed to the list than what the lists I received from ICANN contained. This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end. The list I got from ICANN contained four groups of people: A. Members of the ICG B. Liaisons to the ICG (from ICANN Board and IANA) C. Support Staff (from ICANN) D. Other people (on mailing list but not on the list I got from ICANN) The main reason for investigating this is to understand who should get read/write access to our documents. Everyone do get read access of course. When validating these four groups I found out a few things: Group A consists of the following people: ALAC Jean-Jacques Subrenat Mohamed El-Bashir ASO Hartmut Glaser ccNSO Mary Uduma Xiaodong Lee Keith Davidson Martin Boyle GNSO Wolf Ulrich Knoben Milton Mueller James Bladel gTLD Registries Keith Drazek Jon Nevett GAC Heather Dryden Manal Ismail Aratesh Kavouss Michael Niebel Jandyr Santos ICC/BASIS Joseph Alhadeff IAB Russ Housley Lynn St Amour IETF Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper ISOC Narelle Clark Demi Getschko NRO Adiel Akplogan Paul Wilson RSSAC Lars-Johan Liman Daniel Karrenberg SSAC Patrik Fältström Russ Mundy Group B contains: Board Liaison Kuo Wei-Wu Dedicated IANA staff liaison expert Elise Gerich Group C and D is suggested by ICANN to be consolidated and trimmed to the following five people: Theresa Swinehart -- responsible at ICANN for both processes (NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN accountability). She is on in her role as ICANN being the facilitator of the process. Ergys Ramaj and Alice Jansen -- core support to the Coordination Group to provide whatever is needed to the Coordination group including meeting support, liaising with the interpretation and translation services, meetings team, IT teams, and any other logistical and administrative support. Jim Tengrove, assisted by Hillary Jett, are responsible for ICG-related Communications, including updates to the website. In addition, these four people that are (or have been) subscribed are: Tracy Hackshaw -- interim appointed GAC member, who following the ICG decision to accept all 5 proposed GAC members, was removed from the mailing-list this weekend. Sam Dickinson -- is not ICANN staff, but was engaged and paid for by ICANN for the purposes of the London meeting and any minutes, writing, or other support. Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad which are back-ups to the core contact Team. Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate: 1. Members and liaisons to ICG My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons. When we need to come to consensus about something, the consensus should be among the members, not members+liaisons. We can solicit advice and opinions from the liaisons, but they should not otherwise be involved in consensus gathering or writing the group’s output. I think it is inappropriate for people who are employed by ICANN or who have fiduciary responsibility to ICANN to be otherwise involved in discussions and decisions about the future of the oversight of one of the ICANN departments. I do understand this was not explicitly discussed in London. Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons). 2. Support staff Until CG have a secretariat in place, I think the current set of staff support (Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary) have proven to work effectively, on our request, and can very well continue to function as the interim secretariat for ICG until further notice. Suggestion: We accept the proposal from ICANN to until further notice from ICG continue with this set of support staff: Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary. 3. Interim appointed GAC member Tracy is now removed from the list as GAC has appointed the five members. Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate. 4. Minutes of our meeting Sam Dickinson has been taking minutes from our first meeting. ICANN has asked ICG whether we do think that was useful and whether we are interested in similar needs in the future. As we have not resolved our ideas with a secretariat yet, and we are still (at least myself) digesting minutes from first meeting, I think having a discussion on future minutes is premature. Suggestion: We postpone discussion on minutes and otherwise record taking of our future meetings to the discussion on the Secretariat. Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary). 5. ICANN backup contacts As noted above, Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad are on the mailing list as backup contacts. ICANN has suggested that as the ICG is now up and running, they are removed from our mailing list and otherwise special treatment compared to other ICANN staff. In fact, they have as far as I understand already been removed from the list already. Suggestion: We support ICANN in this proposal, thanks Jamie and Grace for their ability to help, and I validate the situation that they have been removed from the mailing list and that way got special treatment compared with other ICANN staff. 6. Write access to our documents Everyone is to be given read access to our documents. Question is who should get read/write access. We have a number of alternatives here, and which one we choose depends on what answers we get on the questions above. Alternative A: Members only Today members of ICG do have write access, and update of documents there depends on members doing explicit actions. Alternative B: Members + liaisons To make feedback loop from liaisons easier, we also give write access for liaisons. This do give ability for liaisons to write in documents, which might be preferable for example in the form of change tags in Word documents. Alternative C: Members + Support Staff By letting support staff write to documents members will be relieved from the task of updating documents and otherwise do purely administerial tasks. Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff A merge of alternative B and C. In reality it implies (given my suggestion on issue 5 above finds consensus in ICG) that all members of this mailing list do get read/write access to the documents. Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents.

17 30

Redraft of RFP
by Paul Wilson Aug. 6, 2014

Aug. 6, 2014

Thanks to comments from a few of you, here’s a further draft of the RFP. My feeling is that a very structured approach is needed, and I hope that we can gather all the needed information in this way. From the IP addressing community, I think we could provide a detailed and complete response in this format, but other will need to be able to do so too. I hope this is useful. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38

9 19

Updated deadlines - minutes, RFP, charter, secretariat
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 5, 2014

Aug. 5, 2014

Hi all, I have updated the Action Items list (attached and in Dropbox). It proposes specific timelines for a number of items that we agreed to work on and lists who the owners are — whether the full ICG or some specific person. Please respond ASAP if you think any of these deadlines need to be changed. I’ve tried to synthesize various conversations in other threads to come up with these. In places where “Secretariat” is listed as the owner, I can work with them to get materials posted if necessary. == Secretariat description == Comments due by July 31 Adiel to produce an updated version by Aug 4 Final version to be published and advertised by Aug 7 assuming we reach agreement on content == Communities RFP == Comments due by Aug 1 Paul to produce an updated version by Aug 5 Draft version to be published to communities by Aug 8 (acknowledging its draft-y nature). == Meeting minutes == Comments due by Aug 7 Final versions to be published by Aug 13 == Charter == Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter comments roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup an explicit mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and announce a clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this proposal. So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email alias (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can send comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member (which I still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments). Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page that we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I suggest that we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This is not a lengthy period of time but I think we had a general sense that it’s most important to get the broad outlines of the charter right rather than spending weeks on the details, so hopefully this will be sufficient. Once the comments come in, Jari will have the token to produce an updated version which we can hopefully come to consensus on in the second half of August. One last comment: I know that people were not very warm to the idea of having a conference call in August before we meet face-to-face. However, with all of these deliverables coming up and with us sorting out our decision making processes as we go, I tend to think that having a call during the week of August 11 or August 18 would be beneficial. Of course some folks will be on holiday and whatnot but it might still help to touch base in real time for an hour. Can I interest anyone in that? ;-) Thanks, Alissa

18 21

Results of chair structure poll
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 3, 2014

Aug. 3, 2014

I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6> and wanted to summarize where I think we are. Twenty-one ICG participants responded to the poll (out of 30).* There were four choices for people to provide feedback about in the poll: One chair with one alternate (“1+1”) Two co-chairs (“2”) One chair with two alternates (“1+2”) Three co-chairs (“3”) There was no clear consensus among respondents about their preference among the above choices — in fact responses were fairly evenly split among all four choices. Ten people preferred the options that would yield two chairs (1+1 or 2); 11 people preferred options that would yield three chairs (1+2 or 3). The option preferred by the greatest number of respondents was (3), with seven responses in favor, compared to five for (1+1), five for (2), and four for (1+2). The rationales given for people’s choices related primarily to organizational concerns (i.e., which structure will make it easiest to share the workload, determine consensus, organize amongst the chairs themselves), diversity/balance of many sorts among the chairs, and political aspects. These rationales were argued in different directions, for and against the different options — again no consensus that I could see. The poll also asked about which options people can’t live with. Five respondents said they could not live with (3), four said they could not live with (2), and each of the other options had two respondents each. Most respondents could live with all four options. So, it’s not obvious what to do here. Here is my suggestion, in the spirit of compromise: We go with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2) where the work is expected to be divided among all three people. This can mitigate some of the organizational concerns (since there will be one chair to be the backstop responsible for getting things done if necessary) while providing three slots’ worth of opportunity for diversity of different flavors. More people preferred options that would yield three chairs, so this fits that bill, and among the two options for that, (1+2) was the less controversial (most everyone can live with it). My hope is that people can accept this compromise in the interest of getting on with the real work at hand -- if you absolutely cannot live with this, please say so by Aug 5 at 20:00 UTC (if you're ok with it, hearing that would be helpful too). Assuming people can accept this approach, I’d like to ask Joe to figure out a process for conducting an email vote or some such to get people appointed to these roles next week. Alissa * One member of the community also responded.

18 24

ICG Secretariat
by Adiel Akplogan Aug. 3, 2014

Aug. 3, 2014

Dear all, I have volunteered in London to takeover the issue on ICG Secretariat. Please see attached a document for input and comment where are try to define some criteria and framework for the secretariat function. I have suggested that we have the ToR published by the first week of August, so we will need to finalise this document by the end of next week (31/07/2014). Thanks. - a.

12 15

ICG mtg #2 was announced
by Alice Jansen Aug. 1, 2014

Aug. 1, 2014

Dear ICG Members, For your information, please note that the ICG meeting #2 (including remote participation details) was announced on the ICANN website yesterday - see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-16-en Thanks, Best regards Alice

3 3

Reminder: RFP comments due Aug 1
by Alissa Cooper July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

Please respond to the “Redraft of RFP” thread started by Paul by Aug 1, 20:00 UTC. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000435.html

2 1

Third F2F meeting - Oct 17
by Alissa Cooper July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

This week we got a few more responses to the face-to-face meeting doodle poll <http://doodle.com/76seg27mgz4i44m5> and by far the date with best availability for the group is October 17. ICANN staff has confirmed that there is a room available for us to meet that day in Los Angeles, with a hard stop at 17:30. So I think we should go ahead and schedule our third face-to-face meeting for that day and have ICANN staff make the arrangements. I realize this date does not work for everyone, but that is bound to be the case now and again in a group of this size (for example, I personally will not be able to attend in person on Sept 6 due to a prior conflict). We will have remote participation and translation as usual. Alissa

6 7

With attachment: PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP
by Alice Jansen July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

Dear ICG Members, It appears I forgot to include the travel request form attachment. Now rectified. Apologies for any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused. Best regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:57 PM To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>" <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP Dear ICG Members, As announced by Alissa, the ICG in-person meeting # 2 will take place on: ** Saturday, 6 September 2014** At the Grand Hyatt<http://istanbul.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html> in Istanbul Meeting room: Tyana 1&2 09:00-17:30 EEST - 06:00-14:30 UTC See timezone conversion at: http://tinyurl.com/qz5zjh3 Remote participation (RP) features will be available for ICG members who are not in a position to attend the meeting in person. Remote Participation & Interpreting The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow your exchanges through the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Coordination Group Members participating remotely in the meeting should join the adobe connect room to view any material being displayed in the meeting room. The dial-in bridge details will be sent to you in a separate email (off list). Please note that we will have interpreting services at the meeting. Links to the respective languages are available below: * English - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-en.m3u * French - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u * Spanish - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u * Chinese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u * Russian - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u * Arabic - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u * Portuguese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-pt.m3u The community will be also be able to follow the real time transcript (RTT) at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=06Sep2014icg (also available in the virtual meeting room). Travel Support As indicated in the process published on 6 June 2014, meal and lodging costs for ICG members to participate in ICG meetings will be covered by ICANN, upon request and in accordance with ICANN's community travel support guidelines<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en>. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. Should you need travel support to attend this meeting, please inform ICANN staff as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August - COB. ICANN staff will require your duly completed travel support request form (attached) to process your request - kindly ensure to return it to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> within the timeframe identified above. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Should you have already made travel arrangements to attend the IGF meeting in Istanbul, please inform staff (off list) whether you need travel support to extend your stay. Thank you - Best regards, Alice

1 0