- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

CRISP proposal assessment
by Paul Wilson Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Dear all, Here attached is my assessment of the CRISP proposal. All the best Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

5 5

Moderator for Monday Session
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

The suggestion has been to have an independent moderator. I have reached out to Pindar Wong that unfortunately can not be here in time, so, please suggest moderator! Patrik

7 7

Assessments, agenda singapore etc
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

All, First of all, I am happy to see assessments be added to the Dropbox in the folder Evaluation->Assessments->{Names,Numbers,Protocol Parameters}. Keep up the good work (yes, I know, I am working on the Numbers as promised). Secondly, I might not be able to participate on the call today due to speaking in the European Commission. It depends a bit on when my speaking slot actually ends up being. I might be able to participate on a portion of the call. Let me because of that report here in writing: - Move of website, mailing lists etc to new secretariat This is under way, and you might see first things moved already end of this week. Once again, a reminder that we will change domain name for the things we use. But we will also get new features, like a calendar(!). - Our f2f meeting in Singapore We will meet Friday and Saturday, and I suggest the following: Friday Welcome (Patrik) 9:00-09:30 - Agenda review - Outstanding minutes approval - Secretariat, logistics, teleconferences etc Status coordination with ICANN Accountability CCWG (Mohamed) 09:30-10:30 Break 10:30-11:00 Process finalization process, questions that are filed etc (Everyone) 11:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:00 Status for each one of the proposals (Everyone) 14:00-15:15 Break 15:15-15:45 Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 15:45-17:00 Group meeting(s) for people gathering in work sessions (food arrangements unclear) 17:00-21:00 Saturday Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 09:00-10:30 Break 10:30-11:00 Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 11:00-12:30 Summary, path forward and decisions if afternoon session is needed (Everyone) 12:30-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:00 Overflow: Status for each one of the proposals (Everyone) 14:00-15:15 Overflow: Break 15:15-15:45 Overflow: Status for each one of the proposals, cont. (Everyone) 15:45-17:00

5 8

Re: [Internal-cg] ICG web page comments
by Joseph Alhadeff Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Wasn't that supposed to be a secretariat competency? Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko(a)piuha.net] Received: Thursday, 05 Feb 2015, 8:39PM To: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG web page comments I think we need some redesign of the ICG web pages. They are not very easy to navigate, even for us, let alone outsiders. Some examples: * The first item under “Activities” is a call for comments from last August * There is no announcement regarding ICANN 52 agenda * There is no convenient place to go for “meetings” * "Activities” and “Documents” both have “ICG Documents” * The main page lists several categories of things at the bottom (like “Members”) but you cannot click them, and you have to find the clickable item from the right. * What’s the difference between “Members” and “Meet the ICG”? I’d suggest a simpler and more straightforward design, now that we have a fair bit of material. Maybe something like this on the top-level: * About * Members * Transition proposals * Other documents * Meeting schedule * Calls for input In any case, I guess what I am saying is that someone needs to go over the current material and re-organise it in logical fashion. Jari

4 3

ICG web page comments
by Jari Arkko Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

I think we need some redesign of the ICG web pages. They are not very easy to navigate, even for us, let alone outsiders. Some examples: * The first item under “Activities” is a call for comments from last August * There is no announcement regarding ICANN 52 agenda * There is no convenient place to go for “meetings” * "Activities” and “Documents” both have “ICG Documents” * The main page lists several categories of things at the bottom (like “Members”) but you cannot click them, and you have to find the clickable item from the right. * What’s the difference between “Members” and “Meet the ICG”? I’d suggest a simpler and more straightforward design, now that we have a fair bit of material. Maybe something like this on the top-level: * About * Members * Transition proposals * Other documents * Meeting schedule * Calls for input In any case, I guess what I am saying is that someone needs to go over the current material and re-organise it in logical fashion. Jari

3 2

Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
by Joseph Alhadeff Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP. Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [alissa(a)cooperw.in] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko(a)piuha.net] CC: ICG [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG I’ve reviewed this thread and the other related threads and would like to suggest the following: We should strive to get a few people specifically committed to reviewing each proposal, and those people should have varying levels of involvement in each process and familiarity with each community, including “insiders” and “outsiders.” For protocol parameters, I would suggest that the full reviewers be: Jean-Jacques Subrenat Keith Drazek Daniel Karrenberg Jari Arkko This group has a couple of “outsiders,” Jari who was deeply involved in the proposal development, and Daniel who is familiar with the IETF but was not involved in the proposal development. Based on who else has volunteered already, I think we can find this kind of balance for all of the proposals we receive. (Jean-Jacques and Keith have already volunteered for protocol parameters — would be great if the other two listed above are available for this but if not please shout). Anyone else who wants to review the proposal should feel free to do so, of course. Joe and I have put together the attached assessment sheet for the reviewers to fill out and send back to the ICG when their reviews are complete. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pr…> Since we have a call scheduled for January 28, I would suggest a deadline of January 26 for the protocol parameters reviewers to send their reviews to the ICG, and for anyone else to send reviews or initial comments. Then we could potentially have some initial discussion and Q&A on our January 28 call, to be continued Feb 6-7. This timing gives the reviewers 2 weeks to complete their reviews. Does this seem workable? Alissa On Jan 12, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> wrote: > >> I don't think it is appropriate for people who were actively engaged in developing a proposal, and who come only from the affected operational community, to be the ONLY ones evaluating it for the ICG as a whole. That lack of objectivity will not have the legitimacy we need. >> >> On the other hand, I think it is important for someone who understands how the proposal evolved and why certain decisions were made to be present during the evaluation. So I would call for both types of parties to play a role in the initial evaluation, rather than excluding one or the other. > > This seems very reasonable. Thanks. > > Jari >

8 12

Comments received on icg-forum
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Hi All, Please find the links to the comments received on the icg-forum on 4 Feb 2015 below: - Comments on ICG evaluations of numbers proposal: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00026.html - Comments on evaluations of protocol parameters response: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00027.html Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat

2 1

Consolidated meetings list?
by Narelle Clark Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

I'm just receiving a bunch of late diary invitations from the secretariat, which I appreciate by the way, but this close to the meeting I am in transit so it isn't clear what's now on and what isn't. Can we please have the Secretariat provide a consolidated list of ICG related meetings and locations, please? Should be fine as a plain text email. Thanks in advance Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Suite 402 Level 4, 55 Mountain St Ultimo NSW 2007 Ph: 02 9288 4000 Direct: 02 9288 4007 Fax: 02 9288 4019 TTY: 02 9281 5322

3 2

Re: [Internal-cg] Revised ICG timeline
by Joe Alhadeff Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

Colleagues; While we are in agreement, and as BASIS have formally stated, that the quality of the consensus proposal and its ability to assure the continued security, operation and efficiency of the Internet is more important than it's timing, we are also mindful that finishing on time would be the most desirable outcome if we can do so with the needed consultations, consensus and quality outcome. Let us allow events to unfold and react as needed in the course of the events to assure a quality and consensus outcome that meets all of the NTIA conditions. Best, Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com To: alissa(a)cooperw.in Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 4:11:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised ICG timeline Alissa, Thanks Please be aware that NO ONE SHOULD PUSH PRESUURE TO MAKE " VITE FAIT,MAL FAIT" NTIA CONTRACT B IS REQUZIRED TO BE EXTENDED. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL. Please read the statement of Lrry, in which he reiterate that accountability must be in place, included in the Bylaw and Article of incorporation before transition takes place. Kavouss 2015-02-02 21:14 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper < alissa(a)cooperw.in > : 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group - Announcement Regarding Community Comments
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

All, Please find the announcement posted below (full text and link): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-02-en The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)'s <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en .pdf> Request for Proposals [PDF, 84 KB] from the operational communities noted the following: "While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to <mailto:icg-forum@icann.org> icg-forum(a)icann.org." The ICG will next be discussing the protocol parameters and numbers proposals on February 6. As such, the ICG requests that community comments concerning those two proposals or the processes used to create them be received by February 4 at 23:59 UTC. Comments received after that time will not be considered as part of Step I of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finali zation-24dec14-en.pdf> ICG's Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process [PDF, 89 KB] for the protocol parameters and numbering proposals.

1 0