January 2015 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Handling process complaints
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

I’ve included an item on the draft agenda for the January 28 call about handling community process complaints. We have received a few: Richard Hill on IETF process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html Richard Hill on RIR process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html Guru Acharya on RIR process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html And there are some follow-up messages that you can see on the forum. http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ I’ve been forwarding these to the appropriate communities, but I think we need to be a little clearer about what we are expecting here. If we want responses from the communities, we should ask for them directly. If we go down that route, we should probably set a deadline for receiving complaints about this first phase of the process so that we can give the communities clear guidance about what they need to respond to and when. We can discuss this on the call but I wanted to get the discussion going on the mailing list first. Thanks, Alissa

11 34

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

IETF assessment
by Milton L Mueller Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

I have filled out most of the assessment form for the IETF / protocols response to our RFP. I've been waiting to finish it for the IANAPLAN WG to respond to the process challenges, trying to follow the list Unfortunately there is no clear response yet, the list is debating it. So I will wait a bit longer and turn in my draft assessment some time late tonight or tomorrow Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

6 18

CRISP proposal assessment
by Paul Wilson Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Dear all, Here attached is my assessment of the CRISP proposal. All the best Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

5 5

Assessments, agenda singapore etc
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

All, First of all, I am happy to see assessments be added to the Dropbox in the folder Evaluation->Assessments->{Names,Numbers,Protocol Parameters}. Keep up the good work (yes, I know, I am working on the Numbers as promised). Secondly, I might not be able to participate on the call today due to speaking in the European Commission. It depends a bit on when my speaking slot actually ends up being. I might be able to participate on a portion of the call. Let me because of that report here in writing: - Move of website, mailing lists etc to new secretariat This is under way, and you might see first things moved already end of this week. Once again, a reminder that we will change domain name for the things we use. But we will also get new features, like a calendar(!). - Our f2f meeting in Singapore We will meet Friday and Saturday, and I suggest the following: Friday Welcome (Patrik) 9:00-09:30 - Agenda review - Outstanding minutes approval - Secretariat, logistics, teleconferences etc Status coordination with ICANN Accountability CCWG (Mohamed) 09:30-10:30 Break 10:30-11:00 Process finalization process, questions that are filed etc (Everyone) 11:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:00 Status for each one of the proposals (Everyone) 14:00-15:15 Break 15:15-15:45 Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 15:45-17:00 Group meeting(s) for people gathering in work sessions (food arrangements unclear) 17:00-21:00 Saturday Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 09:00-10:30 Break 10:30-11:00 Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 11:00-12:30 Summary, path forward and decisions if afternoon session is needed (Everyone) 12:30-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:00 Overflow: Status for each one of the proposals (Everyone) 14:00-15:15 Overflow: Break 15:15-15:45 Overflow: Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 15:45-17:00

5 8

Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
by Joseph Alhadeff Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP. Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [alissa(a)cooperw.in] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko(a)piuha.net] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG I’ve reviewed this thread and the other related threads and would like to suggest the following: We should strive to get a few people specifically committed to reviewing each proposal, and those people should have varying levels of involvement in each process and familiarity with each community, including “insiders” and “outsiders.” For protocol parameters, I would suggest that the full reviewers be: Jean-Jacques Subrenat Keith Drazek Daniel Karrenberg Jari Arkko This group has a couple of “outsiders,” Jari who was deeply involved in the proposal development, and Daniel who is familiar with the IETF but was not involved in the proposal development. Based on who else has volunteered already, I think we can find this kind of balance for all of the proposals we receive. (Jean-Jacques and Keith have already volunteered for protocol parameters — would be great if the other two listed above are available for this but if not please shout). Anyone else who wants to review the proposal should feel free to do so, of course. Joe and I have put together the attached assessment sheet for the reviewers to fill out and send back to the ICG when their reviews are complete. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pr…> Since we have a call scheduled for January 28, I would suggest a deadline of January 26 for the protocol parameters reviewers to send their reviews to the ICG, and for anyone else to send reviews or initial comments. Then we could potentially have some initial discussion and Q&A on our January 28 call, to be continued Feb 6-7. This timing gives the reviewers 2 weeks to complete their reviews. Does this seem workable? Alissa On Jan 12, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> wrote: > >> I don't think it is appropriate for people who were actively engaged in developing a proposal, and who come only from the affected operational community, to be the ONLY ones evaluating it for the ICG as a whole. That lack of objectivity will not have the legitimacy we need. >> >> On the other hand, I think it is important for someone who understands how the proposal evolved and why certain decisions were made to be present during the evaluation. So I would call for both types of parties to play a role in the initial evaluation, rather than excluding one or the other. > > This seems very reasonable. Thanks. > > Jari >

8 12

announcement re community comments
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

I took an action item on the call to draft a public announcement about timely receipt of community comments. Here it is: --- The ICG’s Request for Proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en…> from the operational communities noted the following: "While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG’s own processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg-forum(a)icann.org.xn--ivg The ICG will next be discussing the protocol parameters and numbers proposals on February 6. As such, the ICG requests that community comments concerning those two proposals or the processes used to create them be received by February 4 at 23:59 UTC. Comments received after that time will not be considered as part of Step I of the ICG’s Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali…> for the protocol parameters and numbering proposals. — I’d like to get this posted by January 30 at 20:00 UTC, so please send your feedback as soon as possible. Alissa

5 10

Community Comments Handling Process ..
by Manal Ismail Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

Dear All .. Please find attached an initial draft which I hope grasps the essence of what has been discussed on the call yesterday .. Thought to await your feedback first before adding on Dropbox .. Kind Regards --Manal

9 14

Fwd: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

We have received a response to our inquiry to the CWG concerning the group’s timing and progress. I would like to suggest that we reserve some time (at least 90 minutes) at our face-to-face meeting next week to discuss the impact of the response on our process timeline <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en…>. I will circulate a proposal for modifying our timeline in advance of the face-to-face meeting. If you have thoughts in the meantime, please share them on this thread. Alissa Begin forwarded message: > From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> > Subject: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment) > Date: January 30, 2015 at 5:37:21 AM PST > To: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se>, "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir(a)mbash.net> > Cc: <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > Reply-To: <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> > > Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages, > > Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some > more detail. > > Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to > respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of > 31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has > involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work > required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key > dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a > three key points: > > 1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily > mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs. > 2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work, > not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves. > 3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and > the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG. > > Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide > a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case > seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be > signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with > the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas > of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity > periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting > of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable > and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on > the diagram. They include but are not limited to: > > A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal > B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific > content of any such advice > B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the > outcome of the work of the CWG > > Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the > support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely > fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that > we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit > target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may > not be achievable. > > We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to > work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of > and engaged in our progress to that end. > > Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task. > > Sincerely, > > > > Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr > > Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG > correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with > the current timetable of the ICG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] > Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16 > To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG > > Dear CWG, > > The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational > communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions > about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to complete > its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of > 30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the > CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate > time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon > as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for > you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete > your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of > assistance. > > We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target > completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the > group’s progress until its work is complete. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

6 9

Inpiut for Guidance to the Operational Communities Regarding Comments to the ICG
by Daniel Karrenberg Jan. 31, 2015

Jan. 31, 2015

Here is what I would write: The ICG suggests that you take all comments made to the ICG about your proposal or the process of creating it as if they were made inside your process and address them as you normally would. This may include discussing the response in your appropriate fora. In particular we suggest that you respond to the comments as you normally would, preferably in public. If the ICG has specific questions to you based on the comments we will explicitly ask them to you as part of our normal ICG process just like any other question we may have. Daniel

8 12