February 2015 - Internal-cg

Interaction with GNSO today
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Some weeks ago, Mohamed, Patrik, and I received a request to join a GNSO session today (12:00-12:30pm in Sophia) and provide an update from the ICG. For various reasons the session was not confirmed until today, but looking at our schedules it appears that at least one of us will be able to participate and possibly all three. Just wanted the ICG to know.

2 1

Interaction with the GNSO during Singapore weekend working session 8 February 2015
by Mohamed El Bashir Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Dear ICG Colleagues, GNSO has requested ICG chairs to provide them an ICG update on the IANA Stweardship Transition which is scheduled today from 12:00 to 12:30 today. Myself and Patrick will participate beside GNSO ICG members ( Keith, James, Wolf-Ulrich, Milton, … ) please join us in this ICG update session. We will give an update which is based/aligned with our yesterday discussions and talking points discussed for our Monday session. Kind Regards, Mohamed

1 0

Proposed question for the protocols OC
by Milton L Mueller Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

This idea was worked out during the informal session yesterday. I think it had support among everyone there, so here is an attempt to provide specific wording for the transmission of the question: "The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was necessary as part of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says "It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to [certain expectations related to iana.org and the iana tm] as part of the transition." If this formal request was required by the other communities would the IETF be willing to make its proposal compatible with that request?" 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/>

8 13

Suggested speaking points
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

> Does the ICG think that there is a realistic chance to reach the original target date ? Our plans are currently unchaged. Expect result 6 months after we receive the response from the CWG. Once the ICG receives the CWG proposal, we will look for any opportunities to accelerate our work while ensuring a predictable process and the necessary public consultations. > Has the ICG revised its timeline ? When will this be the case ? Will there be more clarity by the end of the ICANN week ? ICG is reviewing the timeline, and also communicate with the operational communities, including CWG Names. Whether there will be more clarity by the end of the ICANN week in Singapore is unclear, but there is a possibility there will be. > What is the new target date ? Earlier estimates said ICG need 6 months in addition to what time the communities require, but that was dependent on all proposals arriving at the same time. The impact on getting the proposals at different points in time has not been evaluated yet. > Has the ICG approached the CWG in order to explore whether the CWG could compress its timeline ? Why not ? We are communicating with the CWG, but the time they need is to be calculated by them. If the community require more time, the community should use that time, as Secretary Strickling stated <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-st…> Patrik

2 1

Two possible responses to two possible questions
by Milton L Mueller Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

DOES THE ICG THINK THAT THERE IS A REALISTIC CHANCE TO REACH THE original TARGET DATE? Yes, for the numbers and protocol parameters proposals, this is a realistic possibility HAS THE ICG REVISED ITS TIMELINE? The need of the names CWG for additional time means that the ICG cannot hit its original target for all three proposals, but aside from that our plans are unchanged. Expect result 6 months after we receive the response from the CWG. Once the ICG receives the CWG proposal, we will look for any opportunities to accelerate our work while ensuring a predictable process and the necessary public consultations. 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/>

1 0

Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 > Date: February 6, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM PST > To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> > > Dear all, > Please share this widely with your SO/Acs, we want to get as much distribution on the Discussion Document as possible. > > To view the original message, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-06-en. > > CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52 > The CWG-Stewardship has created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] for the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. The Discussion Document attempts to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues in order to assist the group during its deliberations in Singapore. > > In engaging with the community, such as the group did during the Webinars on 3 February, the CWG-Stewardship hopes to leave the ICANN 52 in a significantly improved position in its mission develop a transition proposal. > > The CWG-Stewardship looks forward to engaging with the community on the questions raised in the Discussion Document, particularly during the CWG-Stewardship Questions & Answers Session on Thursday, 12 February at 10:30 – 11:45 SGT local time. > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

3 6

Revised ICG timeline
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

Hi all, I’ve taken a first stab at revising the ICG timeline (attached and in Dropbox at <https://www.dropbox.com/s/99nrslw6czblvio/TimelineGraphic-v6.xlsx?dl=0>). Inspired by the timetable we received from the CWG <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-January/002784.html>, I’ve called it “Best Case Timeline.” The portion showing CWG proposal development is aligned with what we received from the CWG, and the steps after that are contingent upon when we received the names proposal from them. Our current timeline graphic is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-graphic-10…>. Couple of overall comments: (1) The timeline envisions that the bulk of our ICG time between now and June will be spent getting the IETF and RIR proposal components as final as possible in advance of our receipt of the names proposal from the CWG. (2) All of the engagement of the operational communities in reaction to our Step I and Step II assessment processes are listed with the “if necessary” caveat. We need to build in time in case we have questions we need to send back to the communities, and we need to give them time to address those questions, but it’s also possible that we will not have questions and therefore the built-in time will not be necessary. (3) In our proposal assembly and finalization process, we envisioned running two public comment periods after having assembled a complete proposal. This timeline suggests running a single public comment process instead. Given that the CWG will have run multiple public comment periods on the names piece of the proposal, and the IETF and RIR proposal components will have been quite stable and thoroughly vetted for many months by the time we can run a public comment process on the complete proposal, I think a single public comment process should be sufficient. This will also allow us to complete our work within two ICANN meeting cycles after our receipt of the names proposal. (4) I’ve tried to take into account the timing of future ICANN meetings as well as the impact of holiday periods in putting this together. (5) The timeline envisions us transmitting the final proposal to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA in March 2016. This assumes that the current NTIA contract will have been sufficiently extended beyond September 2015. If it does not get extended, of course we will have to re-evaluate not just the timeline but our work on the transition more broadly at that time. It would be great to discussion about this going on the mailing list this week. I think we should reserve 90 minutes to discuss at our face-to-face meeting, with another 45 minutes or so of parking lot time in case we want to come back to it after the initial discussion. Thanks, Alissa

3 5

Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
by Joseph Alhadeff Feb. 7, 2015

Feb. 7, 2015

I support this approach as well. Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Lynn St.Amour [Lynn(a)lstamour.org] Received: Saturday, 07 Feb 2015, 7:50AM To: Manal Ismail [manal(a)tra.gov.eg] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints] Manal, first, GREAT job as usual! And, both you and Daniel have laid this out quite clearly. Thank you both. I support many of Daniel's points (just as you did), in fact, all but one. I do have concerns about "No acknowledgements. No forwarding" for the reasons you state. It does not feel responsive enough. I would support a path that acknowledged and forwarded any comments the ICG forum received to the appropriate OC - with a short note re our expectations (captured largely in your earlier note, and worded in a way that did not trigger our common fears of incorrect impressions). It could also reaffirm the role of the OC's and the ICG - this will also be instructional for anyone else contemplating a note to the ICG. I also see this more as an Operating Practice than a Procedure per se. If we go this way, I am happy to work with Manal (and others) on text. Best all, Lynn On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:31 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> wrote: > Comments, short ones :), inline below .. > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:52 AM > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling > process complaints] > > On 2.02.15 23:00 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Jean-Jacques, >> >> ... And I think it would be great to continue this discussion on the >> mailing list so that it need not occupy much time during the F2F > meeting. ... > > > After the discussion so far, my proposal remains as is: > > avoid any impression that we run a complaints procedure or an appeals > process. > [MI]: Agree .. > > No procedure. > [MI]: Agree .. We don't necessarily need a procedure, per se, but at > least we need common agreement on how to proceed .. > > No acknowledgements. No forwarding. > [MI]: Let me try to go down this path, then what? Do nothing? Then why > did we agree to receive comments directly from the community at the > first place? Do something else? Fair enough, what is it? > > Agree on posing specific questions using our normal process. > [MI]: I fully agree .. Each ICG member can pose questions to the > relevant OC .. and I support Alissa's proposal, to gather all ICG > questions and compile one list (union of all) for each relevant OC .. > ICG questions and public comments are different and not mutually > exclusive processes, as ICG questions may or may not have to with public > comments .. > > It appears to me that we should address this first. It makes no sense > going into details about a specific procedure before we definitely agree > to have one. > [MI]: Definitely .. I fully agree .. > > [MI]: I think, by now, both our views are clear :) .. Let's hear other > colleagues then try to reach an ICG consensus view and a way forward > tomorrow at the meeting .. > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > 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

SSAC 067, 068 & 069 Now in Dropbox
by Russ Mundy Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Several folks have said that they would like to have the three SSAC publications in our joint Dropbox so I have placed copies of these documents from the SSAC publications web site <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/documents-2012-02-25-en> along with a ReadMe file. The new folder is named: SSAC-Documents Russ

2 1

CRISP presentation from today's meeting 6 Feb 2015
by Paul Wilson Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Should be accessible on dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4io2o9ifbyu15f7/ICG%20CRISP%20update%2006022015%2… ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

1 0