Internal-cg

Download

internal-cg@icann.org

February 2015

30 participants
82 discussions

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

Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
by Joe Alhadeff Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

Very helpful, thanks- Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: manal(a)tra.gov.eg To: kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com, daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2015 4:48:32 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints] I feel that we almost agree on what should be done but disagree on how we should do it .. I believe, but stand to be corrected, that the below, sort of overarching principles, has been already agreed at the beginning of the process: 1 – "that the work was going to be done in the operating communities and," [Lynn] 2 – "that there were existing (and fairly long-standing) processes in place which were known to and had been vetted by those communities allowing them to arrive at their proposals." [Lynn] 3 – "the fine line we have to walk is to not replace the communities' judgement with our own " [Joe] We have already accepted to receive direct comments from the community .. I feel, and again stand to be corrected, that there is some agreement along the following lines: 1 – "We should read all the comments." [Daniel] 2 – "We should take action on the substance from comments that we consider relevant for producing an acceptable document. [Daniel] 3 – "Of course we will observe what the OCs do with comments about the substance of their responses or their procedures. If we determine that action by an OC is needed we can decide to request it, via our normal process. " [Daniel] How? I think this is the question we are debating .. What is the mechanism to observe what the OCs do with comments? In an earlier message, I've tried to list all possible categories of comments we may receive, but I believe Patrik has concisely and accurately described them as follows: a. "The process OC use is flawed and that is pointed out to us." [Patrik] .. My understanding is that nothing we can do here, based on Lynn (2) above .. b. "The process OC use is ok, but not applied correctly (i.e. violated by the OC themselves)." [Patrik] .. I believe this implies a process/substance problem .. And this is where I believe we may need a response based on Daniel (2) & (3) above and bearing in mind Joe (3) above .. c. "The process OC use is ok, applied correctly, but someone is not happy with the result." [Patrik] .. My understanding is that nothing we can do here, since the person her/himself admits the agreed process has been followed .. So what is the mechanism to observe what the OCs do with comments of category (b) .. Are the below suggestions (not alternatives) agreed? " It would help ICG's process if timelines for responses are determined and communicated to the community in question. " [Mary] "highlight if we believe that the comment addresses a missing element of the application." [Joe] "The Operational Communities should carefully consider all comments/complaints and should confirm with the ICG that they have done so." [Jon] I believe all we need is to have a common understanding on how we will do things in a consistent and predictable manner.. Hope this helps us to converge .. Apologies for yet another long email but at least it spares you multiple separate replies J !! Kind Regards --Manal

1 0