Many thanks Alissa and everyone else for the comments ..

I almost agree to all and have included my own inline below ..

Apologies for the late sending ..

Looking forward to further discuss on the call ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:20 AM
To: ICG
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v4

 

I have consolidated the comments and edits from Milton, Adiel, Joe, and Russ in the attached v4 <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20process>. I accepted changes on all the text where no one had commented for easier reading. I also inserted a few comments/edits of my own the proposed changes, which I repeat below.

 

Step 1a, bullet 3: Milton suggested using "Whether the proposal obtained consensus” instead of “How the proposal obtained consensus.” 

I am fine with “whether.” I would also be fine with “Whether and how.”  In the RFP, we ask the communities to explain “the steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine consensus.” I would consider a list of those steps to be the “how.”

 

[MI]: I'm fine with either .. Although I think the point is that we want to ensure 'Whether' the proposal obtained consensus (the steps of which will describe 'How' of course as you rightly mentioned) yet we do not have agreed detailed criteria to evaluate the 'How' steps .. so maybe we should not be focusing on the steps and be more concerned with the result ..  

 

Step 1b: Adiel suggested adding a bullet about timeliness. 

I do not think this is actionable and so should not be included. If we get a proposal after the target deadline, I do not believe we are in a position to do anything other than start conducting the assessment in step 1. Of course, if we get a proposal many weeks/months after the target deadline, it will create some chaos for all of the steps afterward, but I don’t really see a lot of value in specifying how we will handle every possible case of that sort that could arise depending on the exact timing and sequence of the arrival of the component proposals.

 

[MI]: Agree with your reasons for not adding this ..

 

Step 2: Adiel questioned whether the statement that the ICG’s role “is not to draft a single transition proposal” is accurate.

I believe it is accurate, in the sense that we are not “drafting” or writing anything of our own. I added the words “of its own” to the end of that phrase to try to make this more clear.

 

[MI]: Agree with you but also see Adiel's point .. The draft is misleading until you finish reading whole sentence, which is fine for me .. But I can suggest the following alternative:

"According to the ICG Charter, its role is to assemble a single transition proposal from component proposals, not to draft its own."

 

Step 2: Adiel questioned the use of the word “unifying.”

I agree that “unifying” and “uniform” are confusing. I believe our task is one of assembly. Our goal is to end up with one document, but not to massage the text of the component proposals to achieve “unity.” I have replaced the word “unified” in this section with the word “single” to make this clear. 

 

[MI]: Agree with you and Adiel ..

 

Step 2a: Joe inserted “possibly conflicting” as a qualifier for “overlaps”

I don’t understand what a conflicting overlap is, and I think the proposals need to have a coherent story about all overlaps. So I disagree with this addition.

 

[MI]: I noted the rest of the discussion on this in later emails .. So basically you and Joe are saying the same thing, whether, in case of overlaps, the different proposals are suggesting the same or conflicting things .. Yet I would suggest saying here "any conflicting overlaps" rather than "all possibly conflicting overlaps" .. The reason is that the latter gives the feeling that we already expect overlaps and we already expect that those overlaps are suggesting conflicting proposals .. Is this the case? Or have I misunderstood it?

 

Step 2b: Joe asked whether we need to cross-reference the ICANN accountability work.

I think this is already covered by the fact that we are already asking "Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?”

 

[MI]: In fact, I have a question on the second part stating: "Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?" .. How are we going to handle such gaps? Will we go back to the relevant operational community only and they coordinate with CCWG-Accountability if necessary or we will coordinate directly with both?

 

Step 2c: There has been list discussion between Joe and Russ about testing.

I suggested some text as a middle ground approach. In the RFP we do ask the communities to describe any testing they do. I’m not quite sure how the test results could conflict with each other or otherwise be problematic in combination, but I’m happy to check for that when we’re assembling the single proposal.

 

[MI]: I'm fine with the new text you proposed for Step 2c ..

 

[MI]: Step 3: I have a problem understanding the highlighted part of this sentence: "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments addressed within their components before assembling an interim final proposal."

Is this meant to say:

-          "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments on their components addressed before assembling an interim final proposal."? OR

-          "The ICG will coordinate with the operational communities to have public comments addressed within their communities before assembling an interim final proposal."

 

Step 5: I have made the latest changes suggested on the list by Milton, which I think address everyone’s concerns.

 

[MI]: Agree with Milton's proposed text, but I have 2 remarks:

-          I'm more inclined to concatenate the first 2 bullets (5.a & 5.b) into one that reads "The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site and transmit it to the ICANN Board." .. The rationale is that I feel those are simultaneous steps whereas as the bullets stands now they give the feeling that those are 2 sequential steps that may have a period of time in between ..

-          I'm also inclined to precede bullet 5.c with "As conveyed/communicated by the ICANN Board," .. so the whole sentence would read " As conveyed/communicated by the ICANN Board, the Board will send the final proposal to NTIA without making any changes within 14 days of receiving the proposal from the ICG. Any accompanying letter will be posted publicly " .. The rationale here is, rather than speaking on behalf of the Board or say that we are expecting, that we accurately describe the situation .. This is what was conveyed to us from the Board .. Not sure though, language wise, whether it's better/more accurate to say convey, communicate or something else ..

 

Alissa