- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

On coordination with the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process ..
by Manal Ismail Oct. 12, 2014

Oct. 12, 2014

Dear All .. Reference to our discussion on ICG coordination with the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process, I would like to bring to colleagues’ attention the announcement at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-10-10-en, particularly the following: “…given the input over the course of the discussions on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams: one focused on accountability in light of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the U.S. Government; and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.” <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=949263&act=MI8Z&r=25971199&c=…> Apologies if you have already read and took note of the above .. Kind Regards --Manal

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
by mnuduma Oct. 11, 2014

Oct. 11, 2014

+1@ Narelle and Lynn. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Narelle Clark <narelle.clark(a)accan.org.au> Date: 09/10/2014 19:47 (GMT-05:00) To: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn(a)lstamour.org>,Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> Cc: ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language Lynn's first revised wording is better, and I prefer a clearer statement that this is a piece compiled by the ICG through the community, independent of ICANN, and delivered, unchanged to the NTIA. Narelle > -----Original Message----- > From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] > On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Friday, 10 October 2014 1:04 AM > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language > > Hi Alissa, > > Various definitions of "submit" say: "given to a person or body for consideration > or judgment" or "to give (a document, proposal, piece of writing, etc.) to > someone so that it can be considered or approved". > > To make the ICG's intent and responsibility more clear we might say: > > "If no concerns are found, the ICG SENDS the final proposal to ICANN for > delivery to NTIA." > > or > > "If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN". > > > Best, > Lynn > > > > > On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to > remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs > to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published > timeline, it says the following in step 7: > > > > "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to > NTIA." > > > > I suggest that we should update this to say: > > > > "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to > ICANN for delivery to NTIA." > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Thanks, > > 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

1 0

Final schedule? RE: Provisional ICANN 51 schedule
by Narelle Clark Oct. 10, 2014

Oct. 10, 2014

How final is this schedule then? Any further updates? TIA Narelle > -----Original Message----- > From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] > On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2014 4:45 AM > To: ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Provisional ICANN 51 schedule > > Minor updates are below. We will discuss this briefly on the Oct 1 call. > > Meeting with ALAC > Tuesday, 14 October 15:45-16:45 PT > Room: Olympic > https://community.icann.org/x/TMLhAg > http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-alac-work-ii > Speakers: Alissa (ICG intro), TBD (numbers), Martin (names), Jari/Russ H. > (protocol parameters) > All other available ICG members welcome > > Meeting with GAC > Wednesday, 15 October 10:30-11:30 PT > Location TBC > Speakers: Alissa (ICG intro), Adiel (numbers), Martin/Milton (names), Jari/Russ H. > (protocol parameters) All other available ICG members welcome > > Community Discussion with the ICG > Thursday, 16 October 10:00-12:00 PT > Room: Los Angeles > http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg-community > Agenda discussion: > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001744.html > > ICG Dinner > Thursday, 16 October 20:15-22:00 PT > Location TBC > > ICG Mtg #3 [2] > Friday, 17 October 09:00-17:30 PT > Room: Westside > http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg > Patrik, Mohamed, and I will share a draft agenda for this meeting prior to the > start of ICANN 51. > > > > On 9/25/14, 10:56 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > >Here is the provisional schedule for ICANN 51: > > > >Meeting with ALAC [1] > >Tuesday, 14 October 15:45-16:45 PT > >Room: Olympic > > > >https://community.icann.org/x/TMLhAg > > > >http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-alac-work-ii > > > > > >(Unconfirmed) Meeting with GAC [1] > >Wednesday, 15 October 10:30-11:30 PT > >Location TBC > > > >Community Discussion with the ICG [2] > >Thursday, 16 October 10:00-12:00 PT > >Room: Los Angeles > >http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg-community > > > >ICG Dinner > >Thursday, 16 October 20:15-22:00 PT > >Location TBC > > > >ICG Mtg #3 [3] > >Friday, 17 October 09:00-17:30 PT > >Room: Westside > >http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg > > > >[1] I have reached out individually to ICG members off-list to ensure > >that we have people at each of these meetings who can speak about the > >processes being used to develop the names, numbers, and protocol > >parameters proposals, respectively, and how to participate in those processes. > >Participation from the rest of the ICG members is desirable but not > >required if you have scheduling conflicts. I have also reached out to > >CWG folks to see if a CWG-ICG meeting might be arranged and will share > >more information when I have it. > > > >[2] Patrik is working on the agenda for this session. > > > >[3] Patrik, Mohamed, and I will share a draft agenda for this meeting > >prior to the start of ICANN 51. > > > >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

2 1

Secretariat - request and update
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 10, 2014

Oct. 10, 2014

Hi all, I have been working with the vice-chairs, Adiel, and ICANN on a number of aspects related to the selection of the independent secretariat. I wanted to make a request to the group and also provide an update. == Request for an additional reviewer == As a result of discussions with the ICANN procurement staff, we believe that having a total of 5 reviewers to review and score all of the secretariat applicants would be ideal. It helps to have an odd number of reviewers in the evaluations come out somewhat split. We have at present four reviewers who have committed or have already provided reviews and scores for all applicants (Adiel and Russ have completed their evaluations; Jean-Jacques has now evaluated and provided scores for all applicants; and Mohamed is currently doing evaluations of all applicants). We’d like to get one more reviewer to complete this task. Please respond to this message if you are willing to be a reviewer. A later stage of the procurement process will involve group interviews with the finalists. Reviewers should be willing to participate in group interviews as well. All 5 will not need to be present if scheduling does not allow, but please do not sign up to review if you are not willing to also interview. Adiel is working with the ICANN procurement staff on a timeline for the remainder of the process and he will share that with the group when it is ready. == Discussion fora == As you know, to select an independent secretariat we are following ICANN’s procurement rules as the secretariat will be contracted with ICANN. One of those rules is that the identities of candidates and other information about them and their bids must remain confidential throughout the entire procurement process. This rule is necessary to prevent bidders from gaining advantages over one another or over ICANN as the contracting party by obtaining information about their competitors. It helps ensure the credibility of the procurement process and is a fairly standard rule of purchasing ethics. We had a bit of a slip here when some candidate information was posted to this mailing list (and then quoted in response emails), as this mailing list has a public archive. Those emails have been removed from the public archive. The list of emails that has been removed is attached. We are in the process of establishing a private mailing list with no public archive specifically for the purpose of having confidential secretariat selection discussions among the full ICG. You will be automatically subscribed to this list once it is created. When we need to discuss confidential secretariat selection information face-to-face or on a conference call, those meetings will also be private. Transcripts will not be provided. Non-confidential minutes of decisions taken can be provided afterward. It is extremely important that all information shared on this private mailing list or in private ICG discussions remain confidential amongst the 30 members and 2 liaisons of the ICG. You should treat the information shared on this list and in private ICG discussions the same way you would treat your own confidential information. We are not going to go through the process of having everyone sign an NDA, but you should treat your confidentiality obligation as if you had signed one. Leaking information about secretariat candidates outside of this group while the procurement process is ongoing will jeopardize our ability to credibly select a vendor for this purpose. If you feel you cannot maintain confidentiality, you should unsubscribe from the private list and recuse yourself from private ICG discussions. Once the contract with the vendor is signed, we should be able to make public some information about that decision, and at that time it will be clearly communicated to you (and publicly) which information that is. And of course the procurement process and documents are already public. It is also extremely important that you only share information on the private mailing list and in private discussions that needs to be discussed in private. These private fora are not meant to be replacements for this list or the rest of our meetings. We should all be vigilant to limit our confidential discussions to the purpose for which we establish them, and continue to carry on in full transparency on all other matters. We will be having a private discussion of secretariat matters as the first slot on our F2F agenda, October 17, 9:00-9:45. Alice will be sending conference bridge details to remote participants. I have also invited Xavier Calvez, CFO of ICANN, to join us for that session so that he can answer questions that you may have. Thanks, Alissa

4 4

Fwd: Procedural Issue
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 9, 2014

Oct. 9, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Fiona Alexander <FAlexander(a)ntia.doc.gov> > Subject: Procedural Issue > Date: October 7, 2014 at 12:18:30 PM PDT > To: "Alissa(a)cooperw.in" <Alissa(a)cooperw.in> > Cc: Ashley Heineman <AHeineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> > > Hi Alissa > > I hope things are well. We at NTIA wanted to once again thank you and the members of the ICG for all your hard work. NTIA is actively monitoring things and took note of the process time line posted by the ICG on Sept 8th. We wanted to alert you now that we see a procedural issue with “step 7” as proposed. As articulated in our March announcement, we asked ICANN as the both IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS to convene the multistakeholder process to develop the transition plan. (See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…) This means as practical matter and consistent with procurement rules, ICANN must be the part that formally submits the transition proposal to NTIA. While not a substantive concern, we wanted to flag this procedural issue now so that it can be addressed by the ICG and ICANN well in advance. > > Thank you > > Fiona > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Fiona M. Alexander > Associate Administrator for International Affairs > National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > (202) 482-1866 > www.ntia.doc.gov > >

4 3

Agenda for ALAC/GAC meetings
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 9, 2014

Oct. 9, 2014

Here is the proposed agenda for the ALAC and GAC meetings we’re having next week: Brief ICG background/status update — Alissa (3-5 mins) Numbers community process — how it works, how to participate, etc. — Adiel (5-7 mins) Protocol parameters community process — how it works, how to participate, etc. — Jari/Russ (5-7 mins total) Names community process — how it works, how to participate, etc. — Martin/Milton (5-7 mins total) Q&A — (32-42 mins) I think leaving a lot of time for Q&A is the most important thing, and each of these meetings is only 1 hour. Alissa

3 3

Strawman proposal finalization process
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 8, 2014

Oct. 8, 2014

As discussed in the thread about ICANN 51 side meetings, it seems like it would be helpful for us to develop a shared understanding of how we will assemble and finalize a unified transition proposal after we start receiving individual proposals from the operational communities and broader input from all stakeholders. My guess is that we will not come to a firm conclusion about all details of this process prior to ICANN 51, which is fine. But we certainly need to come to some conclusions about it within the next few months, so that we are prepared when we start receiving proposals from the operational communities and input from all stakeholders. I’ve put together a strawman proposal for a process to use to assemble and finalize a unified transition proposal (attached and in dropbox). It is heavily influenced by our charter. You will see that there are many open questions — I’m just throwing this out as a starting point to get discussion going. Please comment. I don’t think we need to document every little detail and possible corner case for how things might go once we start receiving proposals and input, but I do think we should have a rough plan that we can articulate to establish expectations about how we will proceed. Thanks, Alissa

7 9

Re: [Internal-cg] Independent Secretariat
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 8, 2014

Oct. 8, 2014

All, As you respond on this email thread, please refrain from quoting prior messages that include the names, scores, or any other information concerning specific secretariat candidates. Also, please refrain from mentioning the names, scores, or any other information concerning specific candidates on this public mailing list. We are working with ICANN on a solution such that we can discuss this confidential information within this group, but until we get that worked out we need to maintain candidate confidentiality. Thanks, Alissa

3 5

ICG FAQ - Final ..
by Manal Ismail Oct. 8, 2014

Oct. 8, 2014

Dear All .. Please find attached, and in Dropbox, a clean final version of the ICG FAQ .. We still need to insert the referenced email address before developing a PDF version .. I have also inserted a link to the most recent 'Proposal Finalization Process' file .. not sure how this will work with future versions .. I understand that the answer to Q17 on coordination with the accountability process is not 100% agreed by everyone but I believe the last draft provided by Milton was quite accepted to move forward and continue the discussion .. Thank you all for your help and cooperation to get this out before the LA meeting .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:00 AM To: Russ Housley Cc: Manal Ismail; ICG Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ - Question 18, accountability > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] I still worry a bit > about the ICG conducting an analysis. If the names community has > achieved consensus, the only question remaining for the ICG is to > determine if there are gaps. Disagree strongly. "Coordination" with the broader ICANN accountability process is required by the charter and we cannot coordinate if we do not analyze the accountability arrangements as a whole that are coming out of the OC proposals and liaise with them on its implications for their process. As noted in my previous message, if we don't do this we are risking the entire transition being derailed. Furthermore, we do have to assess accountability holistically, as each OC will develop plans independently. Just as we need to look for technical incompatibilities or oversights, we need to do that for accountability. It's not just the names community that has to worry about accountability, by the way. There are major issues with numbers, too.

2 1

Call#5 chat transcript - ICG Dinner ..
by Manal Ismail Oct. 8, 2014

Oct. 8, 2014

Thought it may be useful to post this in a separate thread .. Just want to echo a few thoughts that were shared in call#5 chat room <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-chat-icg-01oct14 -en.pdf> regarding ICG dinner .. * Agree to benefits of having an ICG social event /informal gathering .. * Agree with those who felt the dinner is a bit expensive .. * Will still join if no other options are feasible .. * Agree to keep it an ICG dinner to encourage communication and engagement among ICG members .. Kind Regards --Manal

5 5