Thanks Narelle .. I fully agree .. But the answer to Q#15 is already longer than the sentence discussed below .. The Q&A now reads: 15. What is the role of the ICANN Board in preparing the proposal? The ICG is independent of the ICANN Board. ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons: one from the Board and one from the IANA staff. Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN Board can submit comments through the established procedures for public comment. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN Board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify the proposal submitted by the ICG. When the ICG submits the final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well. Hope this sounds good for all .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Narelle Clark Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:18 AM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques; mnuduma Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 .. In general FAQ answers should be short and to the point. So, I support the following text: "ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons: one from the Board and one from the IANA staff." Those readers that want to understand more will happily go off and look up the list of individuals and identify where they are from precisely. I'm not terribly concerned whether it is a longer piece or not, however. Ideally, as I said, keep it short and in plain English. Regards Narelle

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Monday, 27 October 2014 6:23 AM To: mnuduma Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

Dear Manal,

like Joe, I prefer the sober but accurate formulation you proposed. Thanks.

Jean-Jacques.

----- Mail original ----- De: "mnuduma" <mnuduma@yahoo.com> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>, paf@frobbit.se, "elise gerich" <elise.gerich@icann.org>, manal@tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 26 Octobre 2014 19:34:02 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

+1. Mary Uduma

Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: 27/10/2014 01:06 (GMT+09:00) To: Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>,paf@frobbit.se,elise.gerich@icann.org,manal@ tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

I think the best way to say this - simplest and most accurate - is just to delete the word board and say "ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons...." Making a distinction between the board and a IANA liaison is pointless detail that may confuse ordinary readers more than it clarifies.

...

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:30 PM To: paf@frobbit.se; elise.gerich@icann.org; manal@tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

We really don't need any more detail than that...

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 25 Oct 2014, 2:24PM To: Patrik Fältström [paf@frobbit.se]; Elise Gerich [elise.gerich@icann.org] CC: internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

Thanks Elise, Hartmut and Patrik ..

I had the same understanding too and have reflected this in earlier versions .. Yet I changed the text based on the latest draft shared by Jandyr on behalf of the small drafting group (himself, Lynn & Xiaodong), which I recall was also supported by Jean-Jacques and Milton ..

But I see your point and am happy to revert back to the earlier text, which stated:

“The Board is represented on the ICG by one liaison. In addition, there is a liaison to the ICG from the IANA Department. Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and ICG informed about the implications of the transition.”

Is this ok? Should I also add the names ?

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:06 PM To: Elise Gerich Cc: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

I support this.

Patrik

On 25 okt 2014, at 17:13, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Manal,

I thought the discussion on list had indicated that it is more accurate to say, ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons rather than The Board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons. Kuo-Wei Wu is the Boards liaison to the ICG, and my role is a liaison from the ICANNs IANA department. My participation on the committee is not as a representative of the ICANN Board.

Best regards,

-- Elise

From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>

...

Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM To: "internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> " <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> > Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

Dear all ..

Please find attached, and in Dropbox, a new version of ICG FAQ reflecting the latest views and comments shared .. I have also attached below the final compilation of answers to Q#15 & Q#16 for your convenience .. Kindly note that I took the liberty to change "ICG proposal" or "ICG's proposal" to "proposal submitted by the ICG", to avoid being misunderstood as attributing the community's proposal solely to the ICG .. Hope this is ok with everyone ..

Happy to receive any further remarks or comments ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

----------------------------------------------------------

15. What is the role of the ICANN Board in preparing the proposal?

The ICG is independent of the ICANN Board. The Board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons (Mrs. Elise Gerich, IANA Staff Expert; and Mr. Kuo-Wei Wu, ICANN Board Liaison), who are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN Board can submit comments through the established procedures for public comment. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN Board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify the proposal submitted by the ICG. When the ICG submits the final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well.

16. How will ICANN Board handle the final proposal submitted by the ICG?

The ICG expects that the final proposal, having achieved consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully transmitted to NTIA.

------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

---

Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Agree

-----Original Message-----

My understanding is that the procurement rules requirement is that the proposal be submitted by "ICANN," not specifically the ICANN Board. That is, exactly who from ICANN transmits the proposal is up to ICANN. So I would suggest editing the above phrase as follows:

"Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by ICANN,"

Is the role of the Liaisons only one way or are they supposed to also be keeping each of their respective communities informed of our developments which might trigger any relevant comments through the public process? Joe On 10/27/2014 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

Manal, all,

Thank you for your work on the FAQ and in particular the question about the role of the ICANN Board. I believe this is the most up-to-date text:

On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:

...

The Q&A now reads:

15. What is the role of the ICANN Board in preparing the proposal?

The ICG is independent of the ICANN Board. ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons: one from the Board and one from the IANA staff. Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN Board can submit comments through the established procedures for public comment. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN Board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify the proposal submitted by the ICG. When the ICG submits the final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well.

Hope this sounds good for all ..

Kind Regards --Manal I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process. For example:

* The ICG expects all interested parties, including the ICANN Board and its members, to participate in the operational community processes for developing the transition plan.

* If concerns arise at the ICANN Board level during the transition plan development process, the ICG expects individual Board members to raise these concerns within the community processes, or, exceptionally, for the Board to raise them with the ICG via the ICANN Board liaison.

* The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site.

* The ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board.

* The ICG expects ICANN to transmit the proposal unmodified to NTIA and to publish that transmission on its public web site.

* In the event that ICANN or the ICANN Board find that they are unable to transmit the proposal to NTIA, they will [do X].

* etc.

To me this goes beyond what we might put in an FAQ, and should be documented separately. It is a list of requirements of this sort that I was hoping Xiadong, Jandyr, and Lynn could come up with together and bring back to the full group for discussion. Once we have agreement on the list of requirements, I think we can send those back to the Board through Kuo to obtain agreement on both sides about the process to be followed.

Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Thanks Alissa, your point regarding ICANN delivering the proposal to the NTIA not necessarily the ICANN Board is well noted .. I also agree with you and Joseph on the 2-way liaising function of both liaisons, which I think is already reflected in " ... to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition." But not equally reflected in "Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions ..." .. We can fine tune the language or simply delete the part that is inaccurate, for the sake of shorter answers as suggested by Narelle (I'm also in favour of shorter answers) .. Regarding the below bullet points shared by Alissa, I believe they are all more or less agreed expect that it was also suggested that " When the ICG submits the final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well.", which may not be needed if ICANN confirms its intention to deliver the proposal as submitted and to have any discussion/comments channeled through the established community processes .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:30 PM To: joseph alhadeff Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Role of the board I think they're two-way. On Oct 27, 2014, at 9:49 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

Is the role of the Liaisons only one way or are they supposed to also be keeping each of their respective communities informed of our developments which might trigger any relevant comments through the public process?

Joe On 10/27/2014 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

...

Manal, all,

Thank you for your work on the FAQ and in particular the question about the role of the ICANN Board. I believe this is the most up-to-date text:

On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:

...

The Q&A now reads:

15. What is the role of the ICANN Board in preparing the proposal?

The ICG is independent of the ICANN Board. ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons: one from the Board and one from the IANA staff. Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN Board can submit comments through the established procedures for public comment. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN Board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify the proposal submitted by the ICG. When the ICG submits the final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well.

Hope this sounds good for all ..

Kind Regards --Manal I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process. For example:

* The ICG expects all interested parties, including the ICANN Board and its members, to participate in the operational community processes for developing the transition plan.

* If concerns arise at the ICANN Board level during the transition plan development process, the ICG expects individual Board members to raise these concerns within the community processes, or, exceptionally, for the Board to raise them with the ICG via the ICANN Board liaison.

* The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site.

* The ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board.

* The ICG expects ICANN to transmit the proposal unmodified to NTIA and to publish that transmission on its public web site.

* In the event that ICANN or the ICANN Board find that they are unable to transmit the proposal to NTIA, they will [do X].

* etc.

To me this goes beyond what we might put in an FAQ, and should be documented separately. It is a list of requirements of this sort that I was hoping Xiadong, Jandyr, and Lynn could come up with together and bring back to the full group for discussion. Once we have agreement on the list of requirements, I think we can send those back to the Board through Kuo to obtain agreement on both sides about the process to be followed.

Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Many thanks Lynn .. Works for me :) .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn@LStAmour.org] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:36 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Manal Ismail; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Role of the board On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: <snip>

To me this goes beyond what we might put in an FAQ, and should be documented separately. It is a list of requirements of this sort that I was hoping Xiadong, Jandyr, and Lynn could come up with together and bring back to the full group for discussion. Once we have agreement on the list of requirements, I think we can send those back to the Board through Kuo to obtain agreement on both sides about the process to be followed.

Alissa

Hi Alissa, all, yes, this is what I understood we were to work on as well. I have a draft nearly ready that I was going to share with Xiadong and Jandyr. At this point, I believe the best thing is to incorporate my thoughts into this thread and get it back to the entire ICG. Unfortunately, I cannot do that until tomorrow. Would that work for everyone? Lynn

Many thanks Lynn .. A perfect start .. On a first reading, - I fully agree to all points below .. - I can see you already have 'inter alia' in the sentence reading "our goal is for the submission to have a broad and robust consensus - from inter alia: three IANA Function Communities, ICG, ICANN, ICANN Board." .. But I think it's also important to mention 'the broader community' at the end of the sentence, if this is going to be incorporated in the final document .. - Just to continue the brainstorming, should we mention something along what we have expressed in the timeline regarding NTIA's early feedback .. The timeline states: "Comments from NTIA are strongly desired." .. I believe the early notice we have received, regarding the requirement that the final proposal be submitted to NTIA by ICANN, was extremely helpful and timely .. It has also triggered this whole discussion early enough for us to discuss, agree, share with ICANN and the broader community and hopefully have a commonly agreed way forward .. - Finally, I think we may need to review the language of the timeline, at a later stage, to reflect whatever will be agreed .. I'm specifically talking about the sentence reading "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA".. Thanks again Lynn as well as Jandyr, Xiaodong, Alissa and everyone else who may have contributed thoughts to this .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:10 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Proposal Submission Expectations (was: Role ofthe board) Dear ICG colleagues, this memo follows up on the broader task in front of us re defining our requirements and expectations vis a vis the proposal submission process. It is drafty but given the thread started yesterday by Alissa it seemed helpful to get this out ASAP. Apologies to Jandyr and Xiaodong for an incomplete consultation. In our last f2f meeting, there was a discussion on ICANN Board resolution 2014.10.16.16 related to the Cross-Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability & Governance (CCWG Accountability). That resolution sprang from questions regarding how the ICANN Board will address the consensus recommendations developed through the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. In our discussion, I believe there was quite strong agreement not to follow a similar process for the IANA Stewardship Transition, but as this is less clear in the minutes it may need further confirmation. I have tried to address that issue here. Once there is agreement on the desired process, we will need to ensure there is appropriate awareness and acceptance - from the communities, ICANN and the ICANN Board in particular. What follows is a train of thought (may not be needed for the final document) and then some recommendations (incorporating text from Alissa's email). This can clearly be improved upon. Soooo, train of thought (or operating assumptions?): As in all we do, our goal is for the submission to have a broad and robust consensus - from inter alia: three IANA Function Communities, ICG, ICANN, ICANN Board. Given the community's expectations for this process, it is clear that the proposal is to be developed through the communities with the ICG acting as a coordination group. No additional approval is expected. This means that all affected or interested parties must participate fully in the various community development processes. Additionally, the ICG Charter describes quite well the coordination role of the ICG (again per the community's desire); thereby highlighting the necessity for engagement with the communities during the development process as the only acceptable/viable route for impacting the transition plan. Many of the organizations involved in/impacted by this transition have fiduciary (or fiduciary equivalent) responsibilities. These will need to be managed by each organization and the development of the transition proposal tracked to ensure no late breaking concerns. Again, the community was clear that no additional approval is expected prior to submission to NTIA. [This is because the "policy and oversight responsibilities" for the IANA Functions is done in the three (3) operational communities and not by the IANA Functions Operator. Those processes determine where their IANA requirements will be "operationalized".] At the same time, the ICG should proactively reach out and ensure all key parties understand the paths available to them for participation, the associated timelines, and submission process expectations. This is intended to minimize any misunderstandings or late breaking surprises. Finally, the "ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, approved 17 September 2014, may be a useful guide for input during the development process. ------------------ ICG's Expectations regarding the proposal submission: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT * The ICG expects all interested parties, including ICANN, and the ICANN Board and its members, to follow or participate the operational community processes that are developing the transition plan. * If concerns arise at the ICANN or ICANN Board level during the transition plan development process, the ICG expects individual Staff or Board members to raise these concerns within the community processes, or, exceptionally, to raise them with the ICG via the ICANN liaisons - during the proposal development. * As broad and robust consensus is the community's goal, it is imperative that concerns are raised early and with clear statements on the objection(s) and suggestions on how to mediate the concerns. Again, in this regard, the "ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, approved 17 September 2014, may be a useful guide. * Public comment periods occur per the ICG Charter and timeline (note to ICG: more specificity may be needed here). As a matter of good practice, if not courtesy, outreach to ICANN and the ICANN Board should occur here as well. The purpose would be to ensure full and broad support for the proposal, vs. assuming participation/support. * The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site. * The ICG will transmit the final proposal to ICANN. * The ICG expects ICANN to transmit the proposal unmodified to NTIA and to publish that transmission on its public web site. * Should ICANN or the ICANN Board have concerns over their ability to support (and hence transmit) the community's proposal, it is imperative that this be indicated in a timely enough manner in order to allow resolution of any open items within the established timeline. There is more detail that might usefully be added but hopefully this is enough to begin discussion and permit an agreement in principle. So, please thrash away. Best regards, Lynn _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Thanks Lynn - great start! An observation and question here: It seems to me that this set of expectations could apply as much to any interested party as to ICANN; yet as written the document is largely addressed to the issue of ICANN's participation. This makes sense as a response to the assumption that ICANN will participate in the process in a way which is different from other parties. So if that’s the intent of this document, then I suggest that the title and preamble should make this purpose clear. My question is about NTIA, which is hardly mentioned here; yet in other places (e.g. the timeline) the ICG have expressed the same expectation that NTIA should be tracking (and I assume participating in) the various proposal development processes while they are underway. So my question is whether this document should address specifically the ICG’s expectations of NTIA as well as ICANN. It seems to me that it should. If so, then a preamble could say something like: “In accordance with its charter, the ICG expects to achieve a demonstrated broad and robust consensus on a final IANA transition plan, which is based in the active participation by all interested parties in the various proposal development processes which are now underway. But because that final plan will be provided to ICANN for transmission to the NTIA, questions have arisen as to whether those parties have any special roles in the proposal development and approval processes. This document is intended to clarify the ICG’s understandings and expectations of the roles of ICANN and the NTIA, in answer to these questions." If on the other hand the NTIA is not to be mentioned in this way in this document, then this draft could be adapted accordingly. Hope that makes sense. Thanks, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 On 29 Oct 2014, at 1:10 pm, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:

Dear ICG colleagues,

this memo follows up on the broader task in front of us re defining our requirements and expectations vis a vis the proposal submission process. It is drafty but given the thread started yesterday by Alissa it seemed helpful to get this out ASAP. Apologies to Jandyr and Xiaodong for an incomplete consultation.

In our last f2f meeting, there was a discussion on ICANN Board resolution 2014.10.16.16 related to the Cross-Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability & Governance (CCWG Accountability). That resolution sprang from questions regarding how the ICANN Board will address the consensus recommendations developed through the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. In our discussion, I believe there was quite strong agreement not to follow a similar process for the IANA Stewardship Transition, but as this is less clear in the minutes it may need further confirmation. I have tried to address that issue here. Once there is agreement on the desired process, we will need to ensure there is appropriate awareness and acceptance - from the communities, ICANN and the ICANN Board in particular.

What follows is a train of thought (may not be needed for the final document) and then some recommendations (incorporating text from Alissa's email). This can clearly be improved upon.

Soooo, train of thought (or operating assumptions?):

As in all we do, our goal is for the submission to have a broad and robust consensus - from inter alia: three IANA Function Communities, ICG, ICANN, ICANN Board.

Given the community's expectations for this process, it is clear that the proposal is to be developed through the communities with the ICG acting as a coordination group. No additional approval is expected. This means that all affected or interested parties must participate fully in the various community development processes. Additionally, the ICG Charter describes quite well the coordination role of the ICG (again per the community's desire); thereby highlighting the necessity for engagement with the communities during the development process as the only acceptable/viable route for impacting the transition plan.

Many of the organizations involved in/impacted by this transition have fiduciary (or fiduciary equivalent) responsibilities. These will need to be managed by each organization and the development of the transition proposal tracked to ensure no late breaking concerns. Again, the community was clear that no additional approval is expected prior to submission to NTIA. [This is because the "policy and oversight responsibilities" for the IANA Functions is done in the three (3) operational communities and not by the IANA Functions Operator. Those processes determine where their IANA requirements will be "operationalized".]

At the same time, the ICG should proactively reach out and ensure all key parties understand the paths available to them for participation, the associated timelines, and submission process expectations. This is intended to minimize any misunderstandings or late breaking surprises.

Finally, the "ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, approved 17 September 2014, may be a useful guide for input during the development process.

------------------

ICG's Expectations regarding the proposal submission: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

* The ICG expects all interested parties, including ICANN, and the ICANN Board and its members, to follow or participate the operational community processes that are developing the transition plan.

* If concerns arise at the ICANN or ICANN Board level during the transition plan development process, the ICG expects individual Staff or Board members to raise these concerns within the community processes, or, exceptionally, to raise them with the ICG via the ICANN liaisons - during the proposal development.

* As broad and robust consensus is the community's goal, it is imperative that concerns are raised early and with clear statements on the objection(s) and suggestions on how to mediate the concerns. Again, in this regard, the "ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, approved 17 September 2014, may be a useful guide.

* Public comment periods occur per the ICG Charter and timeline (note to ICG: more specificity may be needed here). As a matter of good practice, if not courtesy, outreach to ICANN and the ICANN Board should occur here as well. The purpose would be to ensure full and broad support for the proposal, vs. assuming participation/support.

* The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site.

* The ICG will transmit the final proposal to ICANN.

* The ICG expects ICANN to transmit the proposal unmodified to NTIA and to publish that transmission on its public web site.

* Should ICANN or the ICANN Board have concerns over their ability to support (and hence transmit) the community's proposal, it is imperative that this be indicated in a timely enough manner in order to allow resolution of any open items within the established timeline.

There is more detail that might usefully be added but hopefully this is enough to begin discussion and permit an agreement in principle. So, please thrash away.

Best regards,

Lynn _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Comments below. Narelle

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2014 2:10 PM <snippage> As in all we do, our goal is for the submission to have a broad and robust consensus - from inter alia: three IANA Function Communities, ICG, ICANN, ICANN Board.

I think there needs to be a bit more clarity about "ICANN" as in, which part of ICANN? It is a large and amorphous entity, though with some moving parts. I wonder also: who is the precise contracting party, or nominee, to the NTIA? Is it "the ICANN Board, ie its Chairperson", or "ICANN the corporation, and therefore its CEO" or some other piece? Other references to "ICANN" beg some further clarity also: I suggest "ICANN communities" or "ICANN stakeholders" or some more precise piece of ICANN's many chunks addressable by acronym or other term.

Given the community's expectations for this process, it is clear that the proposal is to be developed through the communities with the ICG acting as a coordination group. No additional approval is expected. This means that all affected or interested parties must participate fully in the various community development processes. Additionally, the ICG Charter describes quite well the coordination role of the ICG (again per the community's desire); thereby highlighting the necessity for engagement with the communities during the development process as the only acceptable/viable route for impacting the transition plan.

I think we are beholden to do some sort of validation/verification of the responses. It is at least implicit in the RFP itself. Should we get mischievous responses that are clearly incomprehensible, then we should be at liberty to point this out, and I'm confident that the communities will reject such spurious responses out of hand. Surely also, some sort of commentary on the compatibility, coherence or completeness is warranted also?

Many of the organizations involved in/impacted by this transition have fiduciary (or fiduciary equivalent) responsibilities. These will need to be managed by each organization and the development of the transition proposal tracked to ensure no late breaking concerns. Again, the community was clear that no additional approval is expected prior to submission to NTIA. [This is because the "policy and oversight responsibilities" for the IANA Functions is done in the three (3) operational communities and not by the IANA Functions Operator. Those processes determine where their IANA requirements will be "operationalized".]

Agree, however surely we can act to facilitate dialogue between the groups if, on assessment (and I use the term advisedly) we see incompatibility or other issues. This would involve some sort of commentary.

At the same time, the ICG should proactively reach out and ensure all key parties understand the paths available to them for participation, the associated timelines, and submission process expectations. This is intended to minimize any misunderstandings or late breaking surprises.

Indeed we should.

Finally, the "ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, approved 17 September 2014, may be a useful guide for input during the development process.

------------------

ICG's Expectations regarding the proposal submission: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

* The ICG expects all interested parties, including ICANN, and the ICANN Board and its members, to follow or participate the operational community processes that are developing the transition plan.

* If concerns arise at the ICANN or ICANN Board level during the transition plan development process, the ICG expects individual Staff or Board members to raise these concerns within the community processes, or, exceptionally, to raise them with the ICG via the ICANN liaisons - during the proposal development.

Here is where I see a lack of clarity on which bit of ICANN is meant.

* As broad and robust consensus is the community's goal, it is imperative that concerns are raised early and with clear statements on the objection(s) and suggestions on how to mediate the concerns. Again, in this regard, the "ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, approved 17 September 2014, may be a useful guide.

* Public comment periods occur per the ICG Charter and timeline (note to ICG: more specificity may be needed here). As a matter of good practice, if not courtesy, outreach to ICANN and the ICANN Board should occur here as well. The purpose would be to ensure full and broad support for the proposal, vs. assuming participation/support.

* The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site.

* The ICG will transmit the final proposal to ICANN.

To the Board? To the CEO? To the ICANN community? All of the above?

* The ICG expects ICANN to transmit the proposal unmodified to NTIA and to publish that transmission on its public web site.

Unmodified, as is, and without alteration. Also without mediation, or set in a context that sets additional unintended context.

* Should ICANN or the ICANN Board have concerns over their ability to support (and hence transmit) the community's proposal, it is imperative that this be indicated in a timely enough manner in order to allow resolution of any open items within the established timeline.

Good catch.

There is more detail that might usefully be added but hopefully this is enough to begin discussion and permit an agreement in principle. So, please thrash away.

Thanks for the effort Lynn and colleagues. Narelle

Thanks Milton, Mary and Jean-Jacques for your feedback .. Milton, it seems that Elise was suggesting the same thing, and it was my fault going back to a very early draft .. So allow me to confirm the final text here before reflecting the changes in the file: "The ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons (from the Board and the IANA Department). Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition." Would this be acceptable to everyone? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:23 PM To: mnuduma Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Milton L Mueller; Joseph Alhadeff; paf@frobbit.se; elise gerich; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 .. Dear Manal, like Joe, I prefer the sober but accurate formulation you proposed. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "mnuduma" <mnuduma@yahoo.com> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>, paf@frobbit.se, "elise gerich" <elise.gerich@icann.org>, manal@tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 26 Octobre 2014 19:34:02 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 .. +1. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: 27/10/2014 01:06 (GMT+09:00) To: Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>,paf@frobbit.se,elise.gerich@icann.org,manal@tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 .. I think the best way to say this - simplest and most accurate - is just to delete the word board and say "ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons...." Making a distinction between the board and a IANA liaison is pointless detail that may confuse ordinary readers more than it clarifies.

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:30 PM To: paf@frobbit.se; elise.gerich@icann.org; manal@tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

We really don't need any more detail than that...

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 25 Oct 2014, 2:24PM To: Patrik Fältström [paf@frobbit.se]; Elise Gerich [elise.gerich@icann.org] CC: internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

Thanks Elise, Hartmut and Patrik ..

I had the same understanding too and have reflected this in earlier versions .. Yet I changed the text based on the latest draft shared by Jandyr on behalf of the small drafting group (himself, Lynn & Xiaodong), which I recall was also supported by Jean-Jacques and Milton ..

But I see your point and am happy to revert back to the earlier text, which stated:

“The Board is represented on the ICG by one liaison. In addition, there is a liaison to the ICG from the IANA Department. Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and ICG informed about the implications of the transition.”

Is this ok? Should I also add the names ?

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:06 PM To: Elise Gerich Cc: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

I support this.

Patrik

On 25 okt 2014, at 17:13, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Manal,

I thought the discussion on list had indicated that it is more accurate to say, ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons rather than The Board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons. Kuo-Wei Wu is the Boards liaison to the ICG, and my role is a liaison from the ICANNs IANA department. My participation on the committee is not as a representative of the ICANN Board.

Best regards,

-- Elise

From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>

...

Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM To: "internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> " <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> > Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

Dear all ..

Please find attached, and in Dropbox, a new version of ICG FAQ reflecting the latest views and comments shared .. I have also attached below the final compilation of answers to Q#15 & Q#16 for your convenience .. Kindly note that I took the liberty to change "ICG proposal" or "ICG's proposal" to "proposal submitted by the ICG", to avoid being misunderstood as attributing the community's proposal solely to the ICG .. Hope this is ok with everyone ..

Happy to receive any further remarks or comments ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

----------------------------------------------------------

15. What is the role of the ICANN Board in preparing the proposal?

The ICG is independent of the ICANN Board. The Board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons (Mrs. Elise Gerich, IANA Staff Expert; and Mr. Kuo-Wei Wu, ICANN Board Liaison), who are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN Board can submit comments through the established procedures for public comment. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN Board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify the proposal submitted by the ICG. When the ICG submits the final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well.

16. How will ICANN Board handle the final proposal submitted by the ICG?

The ICG expects that the final proposal, having achieved consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully transmitted to NTIA.

------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Thanks James .. noted .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:37 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques; mnuduma; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until23Oct14 .. You can probably just say "ICANN" rather than "The ICANN." But I'm guessing that's just an artifact from previous edits. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy

On Oct 27, 2014, at 4:35 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:

Thanks Milton, Mary and Jean-Jacques for your feedback ..

Milton, it seems that Elise was suggesting the same thing, and it was my fault going back to a very early draft .. So allow me to confirm the final text here before reflecting the changes in the file:

"The ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons (from the Board and the IANA Department). Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition."

Would this be acceptable to everyone?

Kind Regards --Manal

-----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:23 PM To: mnuduma Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Milton L Mueller; Joseph Alhadeff; paf@frobbit.se; elise gerich; Manal Ismail Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

Dear Manal,

like Joe, I prefer the sober but accurate formulation you proposed. Thanks.

Jean-Jacques.

----- Mail original ----- De: "mnuduma" <mnuduma@yahoo.com> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>, paf@frobbit.se, "elise gerich" <elise.gerich@icann.org>, manal@tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 26 Octobre 2014 19:34:02 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

+1. Mary Uduma

Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: 27/10/2014 01:06 (GMT+09:00) To: Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>,paf@frobbit.se,elise.gerich@icann.org,manal@tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

I think the best way to say this - simplest and most accurate - is just to delete the word board and say "ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons...." Making a distinction between the board and a IANA liaison is pointless detail that may confuse ordinary readers more than it clarifies.

...

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:30 PM To: paf@frobbit.se; elise.gerich@icann.org; manal@tra.gov.eg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

We really don't need any more detail than that...

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 25 Oct 2014, 2:24PM To: Patrik Fältström [paf@frobbit.se]; Elise Gerich [elise.gerich@icann.org] CC: internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

Thanks Elise, Hartmut and Patrik ..

I had the same understanding too and have reflected this in earlier versions .. Yet I changed the text based on the latest draft shared by Jandyr on behalf of the small drafting group (himself, Lynn & Xiaodong), which I recall was also supported by Jean-Jacques and Milton ..

But I see your point and am happy to revert back to the earlier text, which stated:

"The Board is represented on the ICG by one liaison. In addition, there is a liaison to the ICG from the IANA Department. Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and ICG informed about the implications of the transition."

Is this ok? Should I also add the names ?

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:06 PM To: Elise Gerich Cc: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

I support this.

Patrik

On 25 okt 2014, at 17:13, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Manal,

I thought the discussion on list had indicated that it is more accurate to say, ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons rather than The Board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons. Kuo-Wei Wu is the Boards liaison to the ICG, and my role is a liaison from the ICANNs IANA department. My participation on the committee is not as a representative of the ICANN Board.

Best regards,

-- Elise

From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>

...

Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM To: "internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> " <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> > Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - reflecting comments received until 23Oct14 ..

Dear all ..

Please find attached, and in Dropbox, a new version of ICG FAQ reflecting the latest views and comments shared .. I have also attached below the final compilation of answers to Q#15 & Q#16 for your convenience .. Kindly note that I took the liberty to change "ICG proposal" or "ICG's proposal" to "proposal submitted by the ICG", to avoid being misunderstood as attributing the community's proposal solely to the ICG .. Hope this is ok with everyone ..

Happy to receive any further remarks or comments ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

----------------------------------------------------------

15. What is the role of the ICANN Board in preparing the proposal?

The ICG is independent of the ICANN Board. The Board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons (Mrs. Elise Gerich, IANA Staff Expert; and Mr. Kuo-Wei Wu, ICANN Board Liaison), who are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN Board can submit comments through the established procedures for public comment. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN Board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify the proposal submitted by the ICG. When the ICG submits the final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well.

16. How will ICANN Board handle the final proposal submitted by the ICG?

The ICG expects that the final proposal, having achieved consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully transmitted to NTIA.

------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

---

Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg