- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
by Milton L Mueller Jan. 17, 2015

Jan. 17, 2015

I've been looking at the total landscape related to IANA transition and I have a question about the Jan 26 deadline for reviewing the IETF proposal. There is a ton of work going on in the names CWG and CCWG in that time frame, and given the relatively unfinished state of the names work I think it's more important to advance that work. At the same time, I am having trouble understanding what we can do with a review of the protocols proposal by Jan 26. Is the purpose to be able to discuss it at the Singapore meeting, or what? 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/>

9 11

Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
by Joseph Alhadeff Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Looks good. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [alissa(a)cooperw.in] Received: Friday, 16 Jan 2015, 1:39PM To: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] CC: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com] ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? I will send the note below by 22:00 UTC today. --- 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. 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 On Jan 15, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Joe > Happy New Year > Please read those comments complaining that > There overlapping between CCGG and CWG > There is insufficient time allowing the community to comments for these sequential changes > There is vides that some sort of unnecessary pressure is put on the process from ..... > There are views that the approach was changed several time and the process was delayed for months and now at the end we push and push > We must feel and be conscious of our responsibilities > However, I Agree with the compromise > Kavouss as you proposed > > > > 2015-01-15 18:12 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com>: > Kavouss: > > The community has developed its own consultation process, perhaps more than one according to Milton's post. While the time frame you reference seems reasonable, and is established in ICANN, it is for the community to determine what it needs. Alissa's e-mail as phrased does nothing to preclude them from using the time frame you suggest. > > While I don't think its needed, but in the name of compromise, if we added: "which should include appropriate time for consultation within the community" at the end of the sentence now ending with "completion date", would that address your concern? > > Joe > > On 1/15/2015 11:57 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Alissa, >> We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. >> There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . >> What is the problem to indicate that >> You may put it as follows >> At the end pls add. >> View were expressed and at what I have proposed. >> We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: >> Alissa, >> We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. >> There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . >> What is the problem to indicate that >> You may put it as follows >> At the end pls add. >> View were expressed a >> >> 2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de>: >> Thanks Alissa, >> >> I agree >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> Sent from my personal phone >> >> Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in>: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing. >>> >>> I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them. >>> >>> 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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. 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 >>> >>> On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? >>>>> Date: January 15, 2015 at 2:50:12 AM PST >>>>> To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr> >>>>> Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> I suggest the following to be added >>>>> >>>>> 1 in the parts proposed by Alissa >>>>> >>>>> "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. In this regard , ICG would appreciate receiving the estimated additional time required enabling CWG to complete its tasks. It is understood that that such an additional time should envisage including sufficient commenting period from the community ( minimum traditional ICANN Commenting period of 21 days ) .The above-mentioned overall additional time required for CWG to complete its works should be formally communicated to ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015 . >>>>> It is understood that the accountability issue relating to the activities of CWG falling under Work Stream 1 of CCWG needs to be fully coordinated with CCWG before being submitted to ICG at the new /updated deadline . >>>>> You may also indicate the CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whether the ICG is deemed to coordinate here. >>>>> I do not really understand the meaning of this added sentence by Wolf >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-01-15 11:27 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>: >>>>> Thanks Alissa, >>>>> >>>>> a note would be helpful. >>>>> >>>>> With regards to the text I suggest asking the CWG also - in case of time revision - what are the major challenges they encounter (e.g. coordination with CCWG-accountability). >>>>> >>>>> I've tried to insert it in your draft (see below). Please feel free to polish. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>> From: Alissa Cooper >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:21 PM >>>>> To: ICG >>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> You may also indicate the CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whether the ICG is deemed to coordinate here. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

4 3

Fwd: Note to CWG re timeline?
by Alissa Cooper Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Begin forwarded message: > From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? > Date: January 15, 2015 at 2:50:12 AM PST > To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr> > Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > > Dear All, > I suggest the following to be added > > 1 in the parts proposed by Alissa > > "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. In this regard , ICG would appreciate receiving the estimated additional time required enabling CWG to complete its tasks. It is understood that that such an additional time should envisage including sufficient commenting period from the community ( minimum traditional ICANN Commenting period of 21 days ) .The above-mentioned overall additional time required for CWG to complete its works should be formally communicated to ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015 . > It is understood that the accountability issue relating to the activities of CWG falling under Work Stream 1 of CCWG needs to be fully coordinated with CCWG before being submitted to ICG at the new /updated deadline . > You may also indicate the CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whether the ICG is deemed to coordinate here. > I do not really understand the meaning of this added sentence by Wolf > Kavouss > > > 2015-01-15 11:27 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>: > Thanks Alissa, > > a note would be helpful. > > With regards to the text I suggest asking the CWG also - in case of time revision - what are the major challenges they encounter (e.g. coordination with CCWG-accountability). > > I've tried to insert it in your draft (see below). Please feel free to polish. > > Thanks > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > From: Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:21 PM > To: ICG > Subject: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? > > 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. > You may also indicate the CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whether the ICG is deemed to coordinate here. > > Thank you, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >

6 14

Interpretation of 'Consensus' ..
by Manal Ismail Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Dear All .. I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails: "The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree" whereas our consensus building document states: "the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations: * Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. * Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report." Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts? Kind Regards --Manal

8 15

Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
by Joseph Alhadeff Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Colleagues: No one is disagreeing with the need to do the job and do it well, but the reality is that two communities have done their work and we have an opportunity to progress that work in Singapore, we will not be repesctful of their work if we don't use this opportinity. Maybe there won't be a complete review but we cannot ignore the timely work of those communities. Best Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] Received: Friday, 16 Jan 2015, 11:50AM To: Milton L Mueller [mueller(a)syr.edu] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal Agree with Milton views. There should be a practicality to do the job rather than rush. Tks Kavouss 2015-01-16 16:19 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu>: > No disagreement on substantive matters here. > > I am merely pointing out that our own timeline says that we will develop a > draft response to the proposals by March 13. So while we can begin > discussion of the protocols (and, perhaps now, the numbers) proposal(s) on > January 28, I see no reason to impose a Jan 26 deadline on _all_ reviews of > the protocols proposal. > > I agree with Daniel that we need to "exercise" our review mechanisms as > soon as possible. What I am concerned about is an arbitrary deadline on the > reviews. Although I do agree with Alissa that it would be nice if everyone > she designated could finish a complete review by Jan 26, I don't think that > is either necessary or likely. I suspect very strongly that we will be > going back to reviewing that proposal after our Jan 28 and Feb 6 > discussions. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- > > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:41 AM > > To: ICG > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal > > > > I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning. And, I fully support > > proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined. > > > > Best, > > Lynn > > > > On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg > > <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > > > We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received. > > We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace. > > > > > > Some reasons: > > > > > > - We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines. > > We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They > need > > to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy. > > > > > > - We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the > > responses we already have with the respective communities. > > > > > > - It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as > > possible to free up capacity for the later stages. > > > > > > - We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can. > > > > > > So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests. > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Sent from a handheld device. > > > > > > On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Milton, > > >> > > >> I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can > > devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the > protocol > > parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore. > > >> > > >> Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the > proposals > > individually < > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition- > > assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>, I think we can and should proceed > > with that step for the proposals we do receive. We're aiming to get that > done > > by Feb 15 according to our process. > > >> > > >> Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and > > folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to > review > > the protocol parameters proposal. I think that's perfectly fine, since > we have > > a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and > > bring their evaluations back to the rest of us. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Alissa > > >> > > >> On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> I've been looking at the total landscape related to IANA transition > and I > > have a question about the Jan 26 deadline for reviewing the IETF > proposal. > > >>> There is a ton of work going on in the names CWG and CCWG in that > > time frame, and given the relatively unfinished state of the names work I > > think it's more important to advance that work. > > >>> At the same time, I am having trouble understanding what we can do > > with a review of the protocols proposal by Jan 26. Is the purpose to be > able > > to discuss it at the Singapore meeting, or what? > > >>> > > >>> 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 > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >

2 1

conditional accountability explained (was, Note to CWG re timelines?)
by Milton L Mueller Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

This term is incoherent, misleading, vague and confusing and its use MUST BE STOPPED. MM: I like Kavouss’s response to the menace of “conditional accountability,” which is rampaging like Godzilla through the city of CWG. Rather than saying it must be stopped, I would note that it has almost succeeded in stopping us. Might be better to say it needs to be chased out of town. That at least implies some movement. Regarding Alissa’s letter, it is OK to ask CWG for a revised timeline. That puts pressure on them to set a new deadline. And stick to it. The problem is that they are now working on two proposals, not one – they have forked – and the forkers have made themselves even more dependent on the slower-moving CCWG. So any predictions they make about their own timeline are suspect. They have done this because about one third of the group supports a so-called ‘internal’ solution, which would award the naming-related IANA functions to ICANN forever so as to avoid an external contracting entity. Needless to say, ICANN Inc. loves this approach, but everyone else sees that if we are not periodically contracting for naming-related IANA functions with ICANN, we create a need for promises of broad reforms in ICANN as a whole, and those reforms can only come from the CCWG-Accountability. Hence, ‘conditional accountability’ (shrieks of horror) means “those accountability reforms that must be made before ICANN can be permanently awarded the naming related IANA functions.” In a paper written almost a year ago, IGP warned everyone to “De-link IANA globalization from broader ICANN reforms.” While we recognized IANA transition as a chance to improve accountability, we warned that too closely linking the IANA stewardship transition “to a complex, lengthy and contentious set of organizational and legal changes related to policy making…could easily prevent any change at all. We therefore favor putting those processes on separate reform tracks.” http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformg… Not so nice to be proved right in this case. In short, the names CWG has stepped in quicksand, and it might be some time before Godzilla’s head (who is, after all, as tall as a skyscraper) disappears below the surface of it. We can confidently predict, however, that it WILL be swallowed up by the quicksand, because the greater interdependencies between the CWG and CCWG created by the internal solution create infinite recursive loops.

1 0

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