- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Timeline for CWG
by Patrik Fältström Feb. 19, 2015

Feb. 19, 2015

All, I want to share this work item from the CWG with the ICG. It is a snapshot of where the CWG do believe they are. They do believe they can deliver before the next ICANN meeting. Regards, Patrik P.S. Thanks to Michael Niebel that pointed this document out to me.

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker
by mnuduma Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

Kavouss and All, The coast is getting clearer as to the interdependencies in tasks of delivering a complete proposal to NTIA. I do not think we misunderstood you Kavouss, I personally thought you were refering to the output of CCWG to be a direct input to the ICG. My understanding is that it would be an indirect input through the proposal of the CWG- IANA and l also agree with Alissa's analysis on the ICG's work relative to Steve's statement. The answers to her two questions are yes, yes. However, it would all depend on when CWG- IANA is able to submit its proposal. Milton captured it correctly as "we do not know yet". As the different co-Chairs of the Work Groups continue to coordinate and collaborate, the tasks timelines will be better managed. Just to be clear, Kavouss, we shall all listen to the song and appreciate the good work of the singer. You are right to the extent of the input coming through the CWG-IANA. I hope you all arrived safely from Singapore like I did. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: 14/02/2015 01:25 (GMT+01:00) To: "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs(a)dyalog.net> Cc: ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker Dear All I am happy that gradually we are convinced that our first assumption that " there is no need that ICG receive any input from CCWG on accountability is not valid. I was sure that we need such information on accountability indirectly i. e . From CCWG work stream 1 to CWG and from CWG to ICG . However.some ICG member mislead us and disagreed with me . Now they realised they my statement made verbally at CCWG and ICG calls were right Let us be more clear and listen to the SONG and forget the SINGER Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:03, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs(a)dyalog.net> wrote: > > Thanks Alissa for highlighting the timeline aspects. I agree with your conclusions. > > In addition, it's worth noting that at ICANN-52, the Chair of the ICANN Board publicly recognized that "When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly AND WITHOUT MODIFICATION to NTIA (my emphasis)". Looking back a few months, when some on the Board were adamant that they had a "right" to modify the Transition plan before sending it on to NTIA, I consider the current Board position to be a significant and welcome change. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > À: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> > Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> > Envoyé: Vendredi 13 Février 2015 02:05:14 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker > > > > The statement has been posted here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en > > > I think the first question we should tackle as a group is whether we think this set of expectations as articulated by the Board is reasonable and feasible for the communities and for us to meet. Personally, my answer to both questions is yes. But I’d like to confirm that others feel the same way. > > > If we do think what the Board has set out is reasonable and feasible, then I agree with Joe that we should incorporate this information into our timeline discussion. Under our original timeline that we published in the fall, we would have been roughly in line with what the Board suggests; that is, we were aiming to submit the transition proposal to the Board in July and the CCWG is aiming to submit in June < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150130/efcb6371… >. However, as we know, our timeline was predicated on us receiving all three community proposals sooner than we now know that we will. > > > So if we look at the two alternative timelines I put together last weekend (re-attached here and in Dropbox < https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0 >) — "Original with CWG Dependency" and “Optimized” — I think it’s fairly obvious that there is a good chance of us not being prepared to submit the transition proposal to the Board until after July. Thus, if we adopt either of those as our revised timeline, I think what we would need to do is continue to coordinate closely with the CCWG to ensure that they do not end up submitting their proposal to the Board too far in advance of when we think we will finish (or vice versa). And since we already have good coordination with them, I don’t think much else would need to be done now. > > > I do think it’s important for us to decide on how we’re revising our timeline so that we know the timing of *our* next steps, and so that we can communicate to the IETF and RIR communities about the timing we expect for their next steps while we await the CWG proposal. So I hope folks are looking at the revised timeline proposals and thinking about sending their feedback in the timeline thread on the list. > > > Alissa > > > > > On Feb 12, 2015, at 7:13 AM, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com > wrote: > > > > How would we factor this in the revision to our timeline? > > On 2/12/2015 4:40 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > > > > > > Please find here the statement as read. > > > > > > We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. > > NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. > > We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. > > With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. > It will also be posted > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > _______________________________________________ > 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

3 5

Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
by WUKnoben Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “numbers and protocols” proposals. This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: ICANN52 Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: a.. see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. >> He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability. Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly. a.. Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

4 5

Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker
by WUKnoben Feb. 17, 2015

Feb. 17, 2015

Please find here the statement as read. We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. It will also be posted Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

7 8

Comment received on the ICG forum
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 16, 2015

Feb. 16, 2015

Hello All, Please find the link to the comment received on the icg-forum on 10 Feb below: - Review of proposals for completness [sic] - http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00031.html Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

ICANN52
by WUKnoben Feb. 15, 2015

Feb. 15, 2015

Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: a.. see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. >> He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability. Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly. a.. Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

7 13

Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
by mnuduma Feb. 14, 2015

Feb. 14, 2015

+1 @ Kavouss. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: 14/02/2015 02:07 (GMT+01:00) To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org,ccwg-accountability1@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Keith I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of Work stream 1 of CCWG No need any intervention of ch chairs at all Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: Hi Kavouss, I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups. Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks. Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG. That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun. We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG. I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks. Regards, Keith On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> wrote: On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. My view: There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from". The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other. There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs. Because of that, coordination is needed. But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

statement Steve Crocker
by WUKnoben Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Steve Crockers statement on behalf of the ICANN Board done at the ICANN Public Forum today: << LET ME GO TO THE STATEMENT RELATED TO THE PROPOSALS HERE. SO WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING -- REQUESTING CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW ICANN WILL HANDLE RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE ICG AND THE WORK STREAM ONE PROPOSAL FROM THE CCWG. WE HOPE THE FOLLOWING WILL BE HELPFUL. NTIA IS EXPECTING COORDINATED PROPOSALS FROM BOTH GROUPS. THEY CANNOT ACT ON JUST ONE. FURTHER, THEY EXPECT THE ICG PROPOSAL WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS PROPOSED BY THE CCWG. WE ARE HEARTENED IN OUR OWN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG'S PROPOSAL. SO I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. WE'VE TRIED TO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE DISPARATE NUANCES OF WHAT OTHERWISE ARE ALL INTENDED TO AIM AT THE SAME TARGET. >> Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 4

IANA session at ICANN 52
by WUKnoben Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

This morning, I attended the IANA session as some few ICG members did. It was a very concise presentation given by IANA senior staff. I highly recommend the session and accompanying presentation be viewed http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015
by Jennifer Chung Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Hello All, As reviewed by the ICG chairs, please find the list of action items from the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4 below: 1. Secretariat to summarize questions/answers resolved internally about the protocol parameters proposal and numbers proposal discussed. 2. Arkko to compile a list of for a request for information from the protocol parameters community re jurisdiction, NTIA oversight and send it to internal-cg list. 3. Wilson to request clarification from CRISP team, questions put forth by Arasteh (regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the numbers proposal). 4. ICG chairs to review details of the proposal finalization process and refine ICG timeline with assistance from Secretariat. 5. Ismail, Arasteh, St. Amour, Alhadeff, Subrenat to continue working on community comments handling document with suggestions put forward by other ICG members. 6. ICG to continue to discuss and agree on talking points and ICG chairs to send bullet points for Monday session on the internal-cg list. 7. Fältström to communicate with CWG-IANA and CCWG-Accountability before coordinating ICG teleconference schedule. Best Regards, Jennifer

12 31