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

RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and make sure we are all on the same page. In our RFP <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en…> we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN. RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals that are missing the oversight and accountability component. We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process — not the last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal for submission to NTIA <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali…>. As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG. Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects other parties to make. I think it’s perfectly fine — and expected — for the proposals to have this feature when they come to us. We didn’t ask the communities to finish the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won’t have to do that, but we’ve built our process to accommodate it. Alissa

6 5

Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Chart on CWG link with CCWG on Accountability
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Flagging this as a discussion being initiated within the CWG that may bubble up to us at some point ... Begin forwarded message: > From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Chart on CWG link with CCWG on Accountability > Date: January 14, 2015 at 12:56:18 AM PST > To: <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > Reply-To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info > > All, > > Please see attached for a draft / proposal for the mechanics and flow of linking the work of this CWG with that of the CCWG on Accountability. > > As you know, this is a critical area of our work. Accordingly, this chart is provided to facilitate discussion on the subject and to assist us in getting to a common CWG view of the linkage and relationship. > > Thank-you, > > > Jonathan & Lise > Co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

Note to CWG re timeline?
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Wolf-Ulrich suggested on the call today that we send a note to the CWG to obtain more information about their expected timeline if it does indeed slip. I’m happy to send such a note if people agree. I’ve drafted something up below. What do others think? Should we send a note? What do you think of the text below? Alissa ---- 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 January 30, 2015. We would ask that if you decide to revise your estimated completion date that you share with the ICG your revised expected timeline. Thank you, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

6 10

Thinking about the assessment process
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Hi all, At some point late last year I believe we had a bit of group discussion about how we will actually staff the process of assessing the community proposals as they come in and any issues that may arise from the fact that many of us are both serving on the ICG and have been involved in the community processes. I thought it would be good to confirm that we are generally in agreement about our approach to ensuring that the ICG assessment is conducted in an independent and unbiased fashion even though we all have our own community affiliations and have been involved in the proposal development processes to different extents. To my mind we have many safeguards in place to help us out here: (1) Multitude of proposal reviews As we receive proposals from the communities, my expectation is that we will have many ICG members willing to review them against our assessment criteria.* I think we should aim to have some reviewers for each community proposal who are not affiliated with the community in question and who did not participate in the proposal development process for that community (as well as some who did). I imagine that through mere solicitation of volunteers to review within our group we will achieve this goal, but we should keep an eye out for it in any event. I think this should help to provide a well-rounded assessment of each proposal. (2) Charter limitations Since by our charter we will not be altering the substance of the proposals, I think the danger of any individual ICG member trying to alter the substance of the proposals through the assessment process is quite limited. (3) Transparent proposal development processes In my opinion the proposal development processes and participation in them has been quite transparent. I think it’s easy to find out which of us have been participating in which processes and only a little harder to figure out what we have been advocating for. Because of this, I think it will be fairly clear if any ICG member tries to use the assessment process to achieve some end that did not obtain community consensus. (4) Operating by ICG consensus As a group we decided long ago to operate on a consensus basis, and I think this provides a further defense against any individual ICG member trying to bend the assessment process to achieve his or her own personal objectives. From my perspective the set of safeguards above is plenty robust to ensure that as a group we can conduct a largely objective assessment of the proposals. I would appreciate thoughts about this from the group. As the proposals start to come in I think it will boost the communities’ confidence in us to have this articulated. Thanks, Alissa * https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali…

17 19

Action items from ICG Call #10, 14 January 2015
by Jennifer Chung Jan. 14, 2015

Jan. 14, 2015

Action items from todays call: 1. ICG co-chairs to follow up on the email list on the further division of responsibility of Secretariat functions. 2. Approval of the 10 December 2014 minutes. 3. Fältström to follow up with note to the email list regarding the logistics of working late on the first day of the face-to-face meetings in Singapore (6 February 2015). 4. Cooper to follow up on the email list re the timeline and if the ICG should follow up with the CWG on Naming related functions regarding this issue. Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Dial In and Adobe Info
by Drazek, Keith Jan. 14, 2015

Jan. 14, 2015

Can someone please reply to this with the dial-in and adobe link? Thanks, Keith “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 1

Personal update
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 14, 2015

Jan. 14, 2015

Hi all, I wanted to let you know that I’m expecting my first baby in March. As a result, I will not be able to travel to Singapore for ICANN 52, and I will be taking some time away from work after the baby is born. Mohamed, Patrik, and I have discussed ICG chairing responsibilities in light of this and wanted to share that plan with you. For the Feb 6-7 ICG meeting and ICANN 52: * As they did for the September meeting, Patrik and Mohamed will decide amongst themselves who will run each session or portion thereof (and we can of course continue the practice of sharing that responsibility among all the ICG members). * I will participate remotely for as much of the meetings as possible and will be available by phone/Skype/IM for ad hoc discussion as necessary. Daylight hours in Singapore are early-to-late evening hours in California, so this should work ok. For parental leave time: My parental leave will likely start in early-to-mid March (although it could start earlier, it’s not entirely predictable). My rough plan for leave is outline below, but obviously it could change substantially at any time depending on how everything goes. I plan to take 4 weeks entirely off of work after the baby is born. If some ICG emergency requires my attention during that time, Patrik and Mohamed will have my contact details and will be able to reach me. During that time they will decide amongst themselves who will run teleconferences, make consensus calls (if necessary), and make administrative decisions, or they will do those things jointly. After 4 weeks I will still be at home with the baby but will plan to return to my ICG responsibilities. Patrik, Mohamed and I will coordinate if scheduling issues come up on my end but my hope is to be able to re-engage with the mailing list, phone conferences, and the rest of our work. After 12 weeks I will be back to working full-time. I plan to travel to ICANN 53. Please feel free to reach out to me on the mailing list or privately if you have questions. Alissa

18 19

Agenda for January 14 call
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 14, 2015

Jan. 14, 2015

Hi all, Here is a draft agenda for our January 14 call. We will be discussing more details of some of these items on the mailing list between now and then, but I wanted to circulate a preliminary agenda with time for folks to provide feedback or suggest additional agenda items. * Secretariat update (5 minutes) * Proposal assembly and finalization — review volunteers, process, timeline (10 minutes) * ICANN 52 planning (20 minutes) * Community process updates (remaining time) Thanks, Alissa

6 7

Draft minutes of 10 December 2014 teleconference
by Samantha Dickinson Jan. 13, 2015

Jan. 13, 2015

I just realised that I never uploaded the minutes of the last call to Dropbox. Please accept my apologies. The draft minutes are now available at: <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ijhwldzzk4ecx0o/minutes-teleconference-10%20decem…> Regards Sam

1 0

IETF response to ICG
by Jari Arkko Jan. 13, 2015

Jan. 13, 2015

Dear all, As you know, the IETF has been working on the protocol parameters aspects of the transition. We created the IANAPLAN working group, developed a proposed response, and held community discussions. And of course, there has been a lot of past evolution in this space as well. This part of the process is coming to an end from our side. Our steering group, the IESG, approved the proposed response on December 18, and after some minor editorial changes, the document has been formally approved today, January 6. The link to our proposal is below, and we look forward to working with the ICG and other communities on the next steps. We are committed to ensuring a good outcome for the Internet in this topic. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09 Jari Arkko

11 17