- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
by Mohamed El Bashir March 6, 2015

March 6, 2015

Dear All, The Chairs had 2 meetings with ICANN's communications team in Los Angeles and Singapore, they offered to support ICG in planning and developingneed inforgraphics, animation videos and media messages . As ICG progressing in the proposal evaluations it might be useful to explain some of our important processes to public in clear visual presentation, if we decided to accept ICANN support in this, its communications team will develop those infographs based on ICG guidance, review and approval. the infograhs and other produced media can be published in ICG web site. Please advice if we can proceed on this approach and develop some infographs with ICANN support. If yes, what issues/topics you think we should focus on ( e.g proposals evaluation/assessment process, the time line, .....etc ). Kind Regards, Mohamed

7 6

Re: [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
by Mohamed El Bashir March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > Sorry, but I don’t see the need for this at all. > > > > I see it as a potential diversion from our substantive work and a > time-consuming move into PR. As another matter, we’ve just detached our > Secretariat from ICANN and now we get deeply enmeshed into their > communications team? > Its shouldn't consume ICG time as a small group or a volunteer(s) can work on it and present the final outcome to ICG. PR is not part of our new secretariat mandate. ICANN still provides ICG with support ( logistics, travel, ...etc ), not sure why PR could not be part of that as long the ICG determines the content of such out-reach messages and approve the end product. > > > We might need some kind of better public outreach when we have assembled > three finalized proposals and we are seeking public comment. Until then, I > do not understand the need. Martin mentioned “registries who are not > involved in the ICANN process.” It is a clearly defined part of this > process that it is the task of the operational communities, in this case > names, to involve all relevant groups in the development of the proposal. > It is not our job to do so. So perhaps ICANN PR can offer their services to > the CWG. > Agree, we will need outreach when we assemble the final proposal but we also need it through the evaluation process, better to plan/start early while we have less pressure now. > > > I am shaking my head in disbelief about this, really. Simple explanations > of the role of the ICG are not the primary problem the transition faces > right now. It is not even a secondary problem, or a tertiary one. Let’s be > realistic. The problem has to do with achieving consensus among a complex > set of interest groups around management of the names root. The idea that > we are going to advance that process with slick infographics about us > strikes me as seriously misguided, almost narcissistic. > I know and others as well clearly the challenges ahead of us as ICG, the current names debate and challenges is clear indication of task complexity in the final proposal assembly. That's being said, its our role to ensure that our processes and procedures are transparent and clear to the wider internet community, this is the objective Not resolving ICG issues complexity by a slick infograph !! > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mohamed El Bashir > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2015 3:15 PM > *To:* ICANN Internal > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages > > > > Dear All, > > The Chairs had 2 meetings with ICANN's communications team in Los Angeles > and Singapore, they offered to support ICG in planning and developingneed > inforgraphics, animation videos and media messages . > > As ICG progressing in the proposal evaluations it might be useful to > explain some of our important processes to public in clear visual > presentation, if we decided to accept ICANN support in this, its > communications team will develop those infographs based on ICG guidance, > review and approval. the infograhs and other produced media can be > published in ICG web site. > > Please advice if we can proceed on this approach and develop some > infographs with ICANN support. > > If yes, what issues/topics you think we should focus on ( e.g proposals > evaluation/assessment process, the time line, .....etc ). > > Kind Regards, > > Mohamed >

4 3

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Next steps?
by Alissa Cooper March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

This is relevant to some of the questions Wolf-Ulrich has raised about implementation, so I’m forwarding it. Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Next steps? > Date: January 26, 2015 at 6:12:27 PM PST > To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hello Seun and colleagues on the IANAXFER list, > > > > Thank you once again Seun for your question about the next steps. > I think this is a useful question for others in the community as well. > > As you are aware, our proposal to the ICG describes high level > principles about the Review Committee and the SLA including "IANA > Service Level Agreement Principles" in the proposal, so RIRs will > consider implementation based on this guidance. > > Our role as the CRISP team is to provide guidance to the RIRs in > the implementation of the proposal, and the details and process of > implementation of the proposal is the responsibility of the RIRs. The > charter of the review committee and actual contract text are part of > implementation of the proposal which is the responsibility of the RIRs. > > Having said this, the CRISP Team believes it is important for the > community to have clear visibility that RIRs acknowledges this proposal > which references actions by them. > > Therefore, after Step2 of the ICG's latest timeline, when the proposals > by all three operational communities are consolidated by the ICG, the > CRISP Team plans to formally inform the executives of the RIRs about the > proposal submitted to the ICG which references actions by the RIRs. > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en… > > We expect that there will be formal acknowledgement from the five RIRs > about this, so it is clear to the community that the RIRs will take the > appropriate steps to implement the proposal from the Number Resources > community. We trust each RIR will consult with their respective > communities as needed in preparing the SLA, and the Review Committee is > to be established in an open and bottom-up manner, as we have described > in the proposal. > > I hope this clarifies the role of the CRISP team and RIRs in future steps. > > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > The CRISP Team > > On 2015/01/22 23:45, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> Great thanks for the first level clarification Izumi. >> >> Cheers! >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: >> >>> Hello Seun, >>> >>> >>> Just from what I can answer for now, >>> >>>>> - SLA requirements >>> >>> "IANA Service Level Agreement Principles" are described in Section >>> III.A.3 of our proposal, as you are probably aware. This lists >>> principles and elements to be included in the SLA. >>> >>> Both of the processes listed below will be lead by the RIRs and not the >>> CRISP Team. I trust the RIRs will start the process, so that we have >>> these them ready before the transition. >>> >>>>> - Charter of review committee >>>>> - Contract actual text >>> >>> I need to double check if there is anything more we can say at this >>> stage as the CRISP Team - Thanks for your question and patience! >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Izumi >>> >>> On 2015/01/22 13:29, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>> Hello Izumi, >>>> >>>> You may have missed this mail, could you/or any crisp team kindly provide >>>> update? >>>> >>>> Just to clarify (in line of recent development), not all the 3 items are >>>> expected to be developed by this WG but will be good to know when those >>>> processes will start. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> On 21 Jan 2015 09:37, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Izumi, CRISP team >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again to you and the entire team. I just want to ask about what >>> the >>>>> next line of action will be? i.e are we to wait until the ICG release >>> their >>>>> final proposal? or while we wait on ICG, we also start the drafting >>> process >>>>> for the following: >>>>> >>>>> - Charter of review committee >>>>> - SLA requirements >>>>> - Contract actual text >>>>> >>>>> Thanks as i look forward to your response >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: >>> +2348035233535**alt >>>>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >>>>> <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* >>>>> >>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

4 4

Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
by Alissa Cooper March 3, 2015

March 3, 2015

Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment. (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week) (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21) (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> Thanks, Alissa

7 12

Dates for meeting in Buenos Aires
by Patrik Fältström March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

All, I just received information that we do have room and interpreters etc for a meeting Thursday-Friday before the ICANN meeting, i.e. June 18-19. I propose we have meetings as follows: June 18: 09:00 - 18:00 June 19: 09:00 - 18:00 Patrik

12 19

Comment received on the icg-forum
by Jennifer Chung March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015

Hello All, Please find the link to the comment received on the icg-forum on 27 Feb below: - A holistic proposal: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00032.html Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Minutes of the 25 February 2015 teleconference
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

Hello All, The minutes of the 25 February 2015 teleconference (ICG Call #12) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/pr24n5x Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

Hello All, The minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting (6-7 February 2015) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z5ytdn7szgpvnvd/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015.docx?dl=0 and https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2ailjn3iq446up/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7- february-2015.docx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer

3 4

Timeline v8
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 28, 2015

Feb. 28, 2015

I took an action on the Feb 25 call to draft an update to our current timeline document to reflect our discussions about how we will proceed. Since I’m going on leave, I offer the text in the attached for discussion without first coordinating it with the co-chairs and Manal, all of whom should feel free to comment on it just as others should. The updated file is also in dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1c1efipctyvchu/TimelineDiscussion-v8.docx?dl=0 Here is the text of the note that I added to the document, which tries to reflect the discussion about this on the mailing list and on the call: March 2014 Update: The timeline below was created around the assumption that the ICG would receive proposals from each of the three operational communities in January 2015. Given that the names community proposal will take more time, the ICG will proceed with as many of the steps described below as possible for the proposals received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities while the names community concludes its work. This will include ICG members informally seeking provisional comments from their respective communities about the combined draft proposal containing the protocol parameters and numbers proposals. ICG members expect to continue to work together with the names community to help ensure that compatibility between the three proposals can be achieved most efficiently. The ICG will revisit the timeline below in the future as the proposal development work progresses. Best, Alissa

3 2

Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
by Alissa Cooper Feb. 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015

Patrik, Mohamed, the secretariat and I have worked on an edited version of the proposal finalization process and a new timeline spreadsheet that corresponds to the edits (attached and in Dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zmvchgfl7fi2al/proposal-finalization-process-v6-… and https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0) In the proposal finalization process: - The sub-steps are now numbered. We added proposed time frames to each of the numbered sub-steps. In the F2F meeting we heard support for maintaining the original time frames, so we did not modify them here. Note, however, that in Step 4 this is basically impossible — we allotted ourselves 4 weeks to obtain public comments, analyze them, send issues to the communities, and produce the final proposal! We put a note in about that being unrealistic. - In steps 1 and 2, we have reversed the order of the “if” clauses concerning whether or not operational community work is needed. It is much easier to depict the steps graphically if the potential OC work is listed first and then the milestone is at the end. We didn’t change any of the substance, just the order in which the words appear. - For steps that are milestones, they say “milestone” rather than listing a time span. In the timeline spreadsheet: - We depicted the original timeline/time spans, as reflected in the edited proposal finalization process, in two ways — first on two separate sheets, and then on one combined sheet. Not sure which one is easier for people to follow so we included both. - I counted up the weeks in our original plan and it was about 28 weeks, or 6.5 months, from Jan 15 to Jul 31. But because the weeks-to-months mapping is not exact (e.g., some months have more than 4 weeks, partial weeks, etc.), if we had mapped that plan out generically week-by-week in the spreadsheet, it would have totaled 26 weeks (4 weeks/month, at 6.5 months, gives 26 weeks). The "Original Timeline with CWG Dependency" tabs lists 31 weeks, which has the original 26 weeks plus the 5 additional weeks built into Step 4 in the proposal finalization process. So this is closer to 8 months rather than the 6 number we were discussing on Saturday, if we stick closely to the proposal finalization process and assume that we will need the operational community work periods, which we may or may not. - We’ve included an alternative timeline as well, called Optimized, to respond to what people were saying in the room about optimizing and parallelizing our work. There is a note on the spreadsheet itself that explains the optimizations. We would need to decide as a group about whether we want to go down the "Original with CWG Dependency" path or the Optimized path. All of the steps are still there and they use the previously defined time frames, but they occur more in parallel. Please send your feedback and opinions about the documents. Thanks, Alissa

12 30