- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Rép: Re: Proposed agenda for July 17-18
by jjs July 15, 2014

July 15, 2014

Hello Alissa, you called for volunteers within our Coordination Group to flesh out our draft agenda, and volunteer to lead the corresponding discussions. Throughout the Transition exercise, proposing viable processes and structures will be of prime importance. Understandably, our draft agenda for London does not identify this as a separate challenge. But I think it must shape all of our work right from the start. I would therefore suggest that on Day 2, from 11:45 to 12:45, we include a discussion on possible types of framework and process, as a replacement for the oversight currently exercised by the USG. Our point of departure must be the 4 criteria laid out by the USG for a transition to be accepted . I'd be prepared to introduce the subject and lead the discussion. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> a écrit : >I am re-sending the link to the agenda (in .txt and .pdf format) in case >new folks have joined this list over the weekend: > >https://www.alissacooper.com/files/iana/ > > >If you are willing to lead any of the agenda sessions, and particularly if >you’re willing to contribute a proposal for any of the sessions and use >that to structure the discussion, please make that known on the list or by >replying to me directly. I have started reaching out to some of you >individually about leading various sessions and will continue to do so if >we don’t have enough volunteers. > >Best, >Alissa > > >On 7/11/14, 4:11 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > >>I have updated the agenda (attached) based on our call yesterday. Note >>that Day 2 now concludes at 5pm rather than 4:30pm. >> >>For a few of the sessions I put “(IETF)” or “(IAB)” in parentheses where I >>know we are working on proposals and may be able to lead those sessions. >>If you are willing to lead any of the agenda sessions, and particularly if >>you’re willing to contribute a proposal for any of the sessions and use >>that to structure the discussion, please make that known on the list or by >>replying to me directly. I will probably reach out to some of you >>individually about leading various sessions if we don’t have enough >>volunteers. >> >>It would probably be good to publish at least a rough agenda publicly on >>our various mailing lists prior to the meeting so that people watching >>remotely can follow along. Let’s aim to do that by, say, 20:00 UTC. >> >>And please keep the comments/suggestions coming on the agenda. >> >>Alissa >> >>On 7/9/14, 2:04 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> wrote: >> >>>Thanks Alice and Alissa for preparing the meeting. I'm one of the GNSO >>>appointees and loaded with more than 30 years of experience from the >>>telco >>>sector. My former employer was Deutsche Telekom, and I'm now working for >>>eco, the German internet business association. >>> >>>Easy for me to be in London on time. Looking forward to meet you all >>>there >>> >>> >>>Best regards >>> >>>Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> >>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>From: Alissa Cooper >>>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 12:19 AM >>>To: internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposed agenda for July 17-18 >>> >>>Hi all, >>> >>>Looking forward to working with you on this important effort. I think I >>>know most of you, but for those who I do not: I’m Alissa Cooper, one of >>>the IETF appointees. I work for Cisco on collaboration technologies >>>(voice, WebEx, video conferencing). I’m currently one of the IETF’s 15 >>>area directors. I’m based in California. >>> >>>I’ve attached a proposed agenda for the July 17-18 meeting, developed in >>>discussion with some IETF/IAB colleagues. This is very much a draft so it >>>would be great to get discussion going with comments/edits/criticisms. >>>Since the group will be somewhat large (~30 people), I made each slot a >>>bit on the long side. >>> >>>Best, >>>Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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

3 2

Introductions
by Daniel Karrenberg July 15, 2014

July 15, 2014

Colleagues, as suggested during our phone call on Thursday here is some background on RSSAC as well as about Liman and myself. The Root Server Systems Advisory Committee has a very narrow charter: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/charter-2013-07-14-en We recently (re-)organised ourselves according to suggestions from a structural review. The current composition of the committee can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rssac-4c-2012-02-25-en We have just established a caucus that will carry out our work. Liman and I have been selected to serve on the coordination group with support from all committee members. I have attached the initial guidance of the committee to us. Our committee is small and communication lines are short. It should be noted however that no-one can speak for the 12 organisations that operate the DNS root name servers. We consider the diversity and independence of these organisations to be an essential element for the stability of the DNS. Our role here is first and foremost to help create a proposal that has the widest support that can practically be achieved. We will work for that first while making sure no harm will come from it, particularly for the root name server operators. I am looking forward to work with all of you to make this happen. Daniel (also for Liman who is enjoying a few holidays) ---- The RSSAC gives the following guidance requested by its representatives in the "NTIA IANA Functions’ Stewardship Transition Coordination Group": The primary objective is to produce a plan that is accepted as widely as practical, maintains IANA functionality and does not reduce the security and stability of the Internet. This plan should, as much as possible, be produced in a bottom-up fashion, based within the groups most closely involved in each of the IANA functions as users or partners. Secondary objectives include: - practical oversight for IANA maintenance of root name server data - operational continuity of IANA - practicality of all oversight arrangements RSSAC wishes to avoid any perception that it is trying to influence the content of the DNS root zone. DNS Root name server operators are publishers but not editors of the zone content. While RSSAC would like to see a result as soon as practical, it is not an objective to achieve this in the shortest possible time; particularly not at the expense of the primary objective of the widest practical support. ---- Lars-Johan Liman I'm a Senior Systems Specialist at Netnod Ineternet Exchange in Stockholm, Sweden - the home of i.root-servers.net, for which I am the technical lead. My bio can be foundin the ICANN Wiki, at http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Lars-Johan_Liman but some highlights include * Early days at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and its Network Operations Centre. * 25 years of experience in operating large servers and network infrastructure. * Has a keen interest for the operations of public infrastructure systems for the Internet, and especially for the stability thereof. * Has strong feelings for openness and transparency. * Has been involved in international Internet related work for more than 20 years - at all levels, from installing equipment in racks to attending UN conferences. * Likes to make policy and implementation fit together. ---- Daniel Karrenberg is chief scientist at the RIPE NCC, the regional Internet registry for Europe and surrounding areas. He advises on research, creation and piloting of new services as well as general strategy development. A computer scientist by training, Daniel likes to invent, design and implement Internet related systems, especially those collecting and processing data about the Internet itself. He also likes to occasionally inject physics, engineering and "networking style" into debates about Internet governance. Daniel maintains his public bio on linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/daniel-karrenberg/36/261/742 Ample information about his past sins can be found using your favourite search engine. Following are a few additional keywords you might use, arranged by decade: 1980s: GUUG EUUG EUnet unido mcvax cwi RARE iepg RIPE 1990s: RIPE+NCC rir iana postel terena ebone centr k.root-servers.net 2000s: dnsmon nsd ris internet+society rssac 2010s: ripe+labs ripestat ripe+atlas

1 0

scheduling meetings
by Milton L Mueller July 14, 2014

July 14, 2014

On this agenda item: 14:15 - 15:00 CG meeting/conference call schedule. For those of us with demanding jobs other than ICANN, it would be useful if we could combine CG meetings with other ICANN meetings to some extent. E.g., target L.A. ICANN meeting in October for our next F2F, add a day on to the beginning or end. IETF or RIR meetings might serve a similar function if we think we need to increase the frequency of F2F meetings (which I hope we don't!) Just a thought. MM

8 8

Rép: Re: Naming the group was RE: scheduling meetings
by jjs July 14, 2014

July 14, 2014

As the important concepts here are - transfer of STEWARDSHIP, - Iana FUNCTIONS, I would suggest a shortened acronym, TSIF, for "Transfer of Stewardship of the IANA Functions". Jean-Jacques. Xiaodong Lee <xl(a)cnnic.cn> a écrit : > >IANA Stewardship Transition Co-ordination Group might be better > > >Xiaodong Lee > >> >>I've been calling it the NISTCG for want of a better term. Ie the NTIA >>IANA Stewardship Transition Co-ordination Group. >> >>Some of our community objected to it being the 'IANA transfer' group >>because in their mind they didn't think IANA needed to be transferred at >>all, but the NTIA. >> >>That would rule out Daniel's ICOB. >> >>Something witty and catchy would be good - NXFER anyone? >> >> >>Narelle >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of >>Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de >>Sent: Sunday, 13 July 2014 9:04 PM >>To: Jari Arkko >>Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org >>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] scheduling meetings >> >>I also agree. >> >>BTW do we have an appropriate acronym for our group? "CG" seems too >>general. Maybe something with relation to IANA: ICG, CIG, CGI... >>Let's fix this asap to communicate to our respective groups. >> >>Wolf-Ulrich >> >>Sent from my personal phone >> >>> Am 13.07.2014 um 04:20 schrieb Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net>: >>> >>> >>>> For those of us with demanding jobs other than ICANN, it would be >>>>useful if we could combine CG meetings with other ICANN meetings to >>>>some extent. >>>> E.g., target L.A. ICANN meeting in October for our next F2F, add a day >>>>on to the beginning or end. IETF or RIR meetings might serve a similar >>>>function if we think we need to increase the frequency of F2F meetings >>>>(which I hope we don't!) >>> >>> I agree with this as well. And IGF, which is coming up. >>> >>> Jari >>> >>> P.S. The IETF would be happy to see you all in some of our meetings, >>>and you might even stay a few extra days, as we discuss IANA and other >>>topics. You'd be warmly welcome in our Honolulu meeting (Nov 9-14) for >>>instance :-) Or our upcoming Toronto meeting that starts a day after the >>>coordination group meeting in London ends. Future meetings are at >>>http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html We also have an IETF policy >>>guest program run by ISOC, a very popular program and something that you >>>might consider if you have not been to an IETF meeting earlier. >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Welcome to the "Internal-cg" mailing list
by Mary Uduma July 12, 2014

July 12, 2014

Test Mary Uduma On Saturday, July 12, 2014 2:22 PM, "internal-cg-request(a)icann.org" <internal-cg-request(a)icann.org> wrote: Welcome to the Internal-cg(a)icann.org mailing list! To post to this list, send your email to: internal-cg(a)icann.org General information about the mailing list is at: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/options/internal-cg/mnuduma%40yahoo.com You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to: Internal-cg-request(a)icann.org with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. You must know your password to change your options (including changing the password, itself) or to unsubscribe. It is: beawdibi Normally, Mailman will remind you of your icann.org mailing list passwords once every month, although you can disable this if you prefer. This reminder will also include instructions on how to unsubscribe or change your account options. There is also a button on your options page that will email your current password to you.

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] scheduling meetings
by James M. Bladel July 12, 2014

July 12, 2014

Agree with this. There is significant overlap between the membership of this group, ICANN, and other IG events (IGF, PP14, etc.) Synchronizing meeting calendars may also cut down on travel & meeting expenses, personal or ICANN. Thanks‹ J. On 7/12/14, 10:32 , "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: >On this agenda item: >14:15 - 15:00 CG meeting/conference call schedule. > >For those of us with demanding jobs other than ICANN, it would be useful >if we could combine CG meetings with other ICANN meetings to some extent. >E.g., target L.A. ICANN meeting in October for our next F2F, add a day on >to the beginning or end. IETF or RIR meetings might serve a similar >function if we think we need to increase the frequency of F2F meetings >(which I hope we don't!) > >Just a thought. > >MM >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Notification that the IANA transition mailing list has been reopened in response to community feedback
by Ergys Ramaj July 11, 2014

July 11, 2014

?Dear all, This is to inform you that the ianatransition(a)icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org> mailing list has been reopened in response to community feedback. Please see below for a note from Theresa Swinehart, also accessible here<mailto:http://discuss-stewardship.icann.org/t/reopening-ianatransition-ican…>. --- All, Thank you for your raising some important issues in relation to the migration of the IANA Transition mailing list to a web forum. We were trying to serve the broadest community we could as efficiently, transparently and as accessibly as we could, but recognize that the migration raised some concerns, which was not at all the intention, and I apologize for this. To address the feedback we have received, we are reinstating the mailing list and we are looking into the points raised around the terms of service. Further we apologize for instituting the previous changes without discussion or further feedback. While we are restoring the mailing list, there was - and still is - a purpose in setting up the forum, and though it's after the fact, it's nonetheless appropriate to share with you what motivated the change. We had input that some prospective participants are uncomfortable using email lists. We also had input that many people wanted additional functionality or different ways to manage communications. Specifically, the migration sought to provide a tool to those also less familiar with using only email lists. The forum was set up to provide the functionality expected from a mailing list, including that participants can send and receive posts via email just like the mailing list. It also some additional aspects some may find easier to manage via, including: * ??Ability to choose what they want to see (rather than have to set up email rules to filter out what they don^1t want). They can mute or follow specific threads; * Ability to sign up for digests (full or topic specific) on a schedule of their choosing; * Ability for search engines to search posts; * Ability to view and respond to specific topics; * Ability for participants to identify the most valuable contributions by liking them; * It can be easier for some less familiar with email lists to see new topics and to navigate to different topics; * Questions can be made and answered and referred to, saving repetition; * Future options include such as user selectable machine translation of posts, thereby allowing multiple language participation in the same discussion, without the conversation fragmenting by language or locality. We appreciate that a forum only option raised other concerns, including many don't like to use discussion forums or manage communications that way. Given the interests expressed to retain the mailing list it will be reopened shortly. Thank you again for your continued feedback and suggestions for improvements, they are important to continue to improve the mechanisms and engagement in these important discussions. Kind regards, Theresa

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Conference call?
by Narelle Clark July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

Am on the call however in a noisy airport lounge. 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 "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn(a)lstamour.org> wrote: Hi Milton, a note came in yesterday - from Alice Jansen included here: Begin forwarded message: > From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group Call 01 - Thurs, 10 July - 20:00-21:00 UTC > Date: July 9, 2014 5:37:19 PM EDT > To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> > > When: Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:00 PM-9:00 PM. Coordinated Universal Time > Where: Conference ID – 92957255 - Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ > > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > **Thursday, 10 July 2014** > 20:00-21:00 UTC > Timezone converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Coordination+Group… > > > Bridge details: > Dial in Numbers - http://adigo.com/icann/ > Conference ID – 92957255 > > Should you need a dial-out for this call, please contact ICANN staff. > The call will be recorded. > On Jul 10, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > As far as I can tell no one has told us the call-in information for the CG conference call that is supposed to happen in about 45 minutes. > > > > > From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:13 PM > To: internal-cg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline > > Colleagues: > > Perhaps the first step is a publication and comment on our operational processes, objectives and input methodology, including consultation mechanisms for those of us representing constituencies. That might give people some comfort in relation to the transparency of our own group's operation? This is likely implied in 1 and 2, but I think we should be more explicit. I understand that this may be more relevant to work other than our own, but issues of optics and comfort with the fairness, inclusiveness and transparency of the process have been huge issues as of late in IG discussions... > > Joe > > On 7/10/2014 1:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > I thought it would be useful to start discussion of some of the topics that the group needs to deal with. I’m sending you some thoughts on the timeline of events looking forward. This is a rough draft and for discussion purposes only. Please comment! > > — > > What is described below reads as one timeline, but it may be important to understand that we actually have multiple parallel efforts: protocol parameters, addresses, and names. These efforts have several points of linkage, but allowing parallel operation is probably a good idea. As a result, the timeline may run at slightly different speeds for the different parts. > > The NTIA has said that the September 2015 deadline is not firm, and that they could extend contracts and prolong the process beyond that. I do believe, however, that there are several reasons why getting done by then is at least useful if not even necessary. First of all, I think we all need a goal. And open-ended timelines lead to open-ended discussions. Second, people, administrations, political climate, etc. may change. So I think we should work towards September 30, 2015. But of course, we also want a good proposal to go forward. > > In thinking about what is needed before completion, I think see at least the following tasks: > > 1. Communities: Communities coming up with plans. > > 2. Coordination and alignment. This includes possible iteration and even going back to the communities. It also includes, possibly, some acceptance phase with the global community for the assembled plan. For instance, the assembled complete plan should probably be something that the customers of IANA are happy with. In other words, coordination can be lead by the coordination group, but it likely includes a lot of work also in the communities. > > 3. Test run. We may want to show off that the system can actually run in the proposed way for a while. > > 4. NTIA evaluation and approval process. > > The community processes are in my opinion the most important ones, and should involve most of the work. In addition, they tend to run for long times. For instance, the simplest IETF last call would be a month already. We also want to give time to the NTIA to do what they need to do. And we should not optimistically assume that there is no need to adjust and iterate over the initially submitted plans. Which may include some additional time confirming with various communities that changes are OK. > > I’m a little unclear how much testing/demonstration we need. Arguably, the IETF probably runs the system it needs already. But there are other parts where some re-organisation and re-thinking is needed. Not really clear to me how much confidence building would be needed for those parts. Does anyone have thoughts on this? > > In general, I think we should run this process as the much ourselves as possible, and have everything (including criteria fulfilment) very clearly spelled out for the NTIA, rather leaving any substantial work for them. But they’ll still need some time to process. And we might again need to come back and change something. > > I guess what I’m coming to is trying to get going pretty early, so that we can iterate in later stages. > > The tasks are obviously overlapping. For instance, the coordination group should do coordination from day 1, by understanding what the communities are doing and pointing out if they are going into conflicting directions or if there are parts that are not being addressed. > > So here is one possible overall timeline: > > Step 1: Communities' work - ready by Dec 30, 2014 (6 months) > > Step 2: Coordination and alignment, including iteration - ready by March 30, 2015 (+3 months) > > Step 3: Acceptance and communication - ready by May 30, 2015 (+2 months) > > Step 4: Testing - ready by July 30, 2015 (+ 2 months) > > Step 5: NTIA evaluation and acceptance - ready by September 30, 2015 (+2 months) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Conference call
by Narelle Clark July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

I will join in 10-15mins N -- 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 Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: As far as I can tell no one has told us the call-in information for the CG conference call that is supposed to happen in about 45 minutes. From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:13 PM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline Colleagues: Perhaps the first step is a publication and comment on our operational processes, objectives and input methodology, including consultation mechanisms for those of us representing constituencies. That might give people some comfort in relation to the transparency of our own group's operation? This is likely implied in 1 and 2, but I think we should be more explicit. I understand that this may be more relevant to work other than our own, but issues of optics and comfort with the fairness, inclusiveness and transparency of the process have been huge issues as of late in IG discussions... Joe On 7/10/2014 1:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: I thought it would be useful to start discussion of some of the topics that the group needs to deal with. I’m sending you some thoughts on the timeline of events looking forward. This is a rough draft and for discussion purposes only. Please comment! — What is described below reads as one timeline, but it may be important to understand that we actually have multiple parallel efforts: protocol parameters, addresses, and names. These efforts have several points of linkage, but allowing parallel operation is probably a good idea. As a result, the timeline may run at slightly different speeds for the different parts. The NTIA has said that the September 2015 deadline is not firm, and that they could extend contracts and prolong the process beyond that. I do believe, however, that there are several reasons why getting done by then is at least useful if not even necessary. First of all, I think we all need a goal. And open-ended timelines lead to open-ended discussions. Second, people, administrations, political climate, etc. may change. So I think we should work towards September 30, 2015. But of course, we also want a good proposal to go forward. In thinking about what is needed before completion, I think see at least the following tasks: 1. Communities: Communities coming up with plans. 2. Coordination and alignment. This includes possible iteration and even going back to the communities. It also includes, possibly, some acceptance phase with the global community for the assembled plan. For instance, the assembled complete plan should probably be something that the customers of IANA are happy with. In other words, coordination can be lead by the coordination group, but it likely includes a lot of work also in the communities. 3. Test run. We may want to show off that the system can actually run in the proposed way for a while. 4. NTIA evaluation and approval process. The community processes are in my opinion the most important ones, and should involve most of the work. In addition, they tend to run for long times. For instance, the simplest IETF last call would be a month already. We also want to give time to the NTIA to do what they need to do. And we should not optimistically assume that there is no need to adjust and iterate over the initially submitted plans. Which may include some additional time confirming with various communities that changes are OK. I’m a little unclear how much testing/demonstration we need. Arguably, the IETF probably runs the system it needs already. But there are other parts where some re-organisation and re-thinking is needed. Not really clear to me how much confidence building would be needed for those parts. Does anyone have thoughts on this? In general, I think we should run this process as the much ourselves as possible, and have everything (including criteria fulfilment) very clearly spelled out for the NTIA, rather leaving any substantial work for them. But they’ll still need some time to process. And we might again need to come back and change something. I guess what I’m coming to is trying to get going pretty early, so that we can iterate in later stages. The tasks are obviously overlapping. For instance, the coordination group should do coordination from day 1, by understanding what the communities are doing and pointing out if they are going into conflicting directions or if there are parts that are not being addressed. So here is one possible overall timeline: Step 1: Communities' work - ready by Dec 30, 2014 (6 months) Step 2: Coordination and alignment, including iteration - ready by March 30, 2015 (+3 months) Step 3: Acceptance and communication - ready by May 30, 2015 (+2 months) Step 4: Testing - ready by July 30, 2015 (+ 2 months) Step 5: NTIA evaluation and acceptance - ready by September 30, 2015 (+2 months) _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Conference call?
by Milton L Mueller July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

As far as I can tell no one has told us the call-in information for the CG conference call that is supposed to happen in about 45 minutes. From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:13 PM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline Colleagues: Perhaps the first step is a publication and comment on our operational processes, objectives and input methodology, including consultation mechanisms for those of us representing constituencies. That might give people some comfort in relation to the transparency of our own group's operation? This is likely implied in 1 and 2, but I think we should be more explicit. I understand that this may be more relevant to work other than our own, but issues of optics and comfort with the fairness, inclusiveness and transparency of the process have been huge issues as of late in IG discussions... Joe On 7/10/2014 1:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: I thought it would be useful to start discussion of some of the topics that the group needs to deal with. I'm sending you some thoughts on the timeline of events looking forward. This is a rough draft and for discussion purposes only. Please comment! - What is described below reads as one timeline, but it may be important to understand that we actually have multiple parallel efforts: protocol parameters, addresses, and names. These efforts have several points of linkage, but allowing parallel operation is probably a good idea. As a result, the timeline may run at slightly different speeds for the different parts. The NTIA has said that the September 2015 deadline is not firm, and that they could extend contracts and prolong the process beyond that. I do believe, however, that there are several reasons why getting done by then is at least useful if not even necessary. First of all, I think we all need a goal. And open-ended timelines lead to open-ended discussions. Second, people, administrations, political climate, etc. may change. So I think we should work towards September 30, 2015. But of course, we also want a good proposal to go forward. In thinking about what is needed before completion, I think see at least the following tasks: 1. Communities: Communities coming up with plans. 2. Coordination and alignment. This includes possible iteration and even going back to the communities. It also includes, possibly, some acceptance phase with the global community for the assembled plan. For instance, the assembled complete plan should probably be something that the customers of IANA are happy with. In other words, coordination can be lead by the coordination group, but it likely includes a lot of work also in the communities. 3. Test run. We may want to show off that the system can actually run in the proposed way for a while. 4. NTIA evaluation and approval process. The community processes are in my opinion the most important ones, and should involve most of the work. In addition, they tend to run for long times. For instance, the simplest IETF last call would be a month already. We also want to give time to the NTIA to do what they need to do. And we should not optimistically assume that there is no need to adjust and iterate over the initially submitted plans. Which may include some additional time confirming with various communities that changes are OK. I'm a little unclear how much testing/demonstration we need. Arguably, the IETF probably runs the system it needs already. But there are other parts where some re-organisation and re-thinking is needed. Not really clear to me how much confidence building would be needed for those parts. Does anyone have thoughts on this? In general, I think we should run this process as the much ourselves as possible, and have everything (including criteria fulfilment) very clearly spelled out for the NTIA, rather leaving any substantial work for them. But they'll still need some time to process. And we might again need to come back and change something. I guess what I'm coming to is trying to get going pretty early, so that we can iterate in later stages. The tasks are obviously overlapping. For instance, the coordination group should do coordination from day 1, by understanding what the communities are doing and pointing out if they are going into conflicting directions or if there are parts that are not being addressed. So here is one possible overall timeline: Step 1: Communities' work - ready by Dec 30, 2014 (6 months) Step 2: Coordination and alignment, including iteration - ready by March 30, 2015 (+3 months) Step 3: Acceptance and communication - ready by May 30, 2015 (+2 months) Step 4: Testing - ready by July 30, 2015 (+ 2 months) Step 5: NTIA evaluation and acceptance - ready by September 30, 2015 (+2 months) _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 3