Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

Patrik, Mohamed, the secretariat and I have worked on an edited version of the proposal finalization process and a new timeline spreadsheet that corresponds to the edits (attached and in Dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zmvchgfl7fi2al/proposal-finalization-process-v6-a... and https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0). In the proposal finalization process: - The sub-steps are now numbered. We added proposed time frames to each of the numbered sub-steps. In the F2F meeting we heard support for maintaining the original time frames, so we did not modify them here. Note, however, that in Step 4 this is basically impossible — we allotted ourselves 4 weeks to obtain public comments, analyze them, send issues to the communities, and produce the final proposal! We put a note in about that being unrealistic. - In steps 1 and 2, we have reversed the order of the “if” clauses concerning whether or not operational community work is needed. It is much easier to depict the steps graphically if the potential OC work is listed first and then the milestone is at the end. We didn’t change any of the substance, just the order in which the words appear. - For steps that are milestones, they say “milestone” rather than listing a time span. In the timeline spreadsheet: - We depicted the original timeline/time spans, as reflected in the edited proposal finalization process, in two ways — first on two separate sheets, and then on one combined sheet. Not sure which one is easier for people to follow so we included both. - I counted up the weeks in our original plan and it was about 28 weeks, or 6.5 months, from Jan 15 to Jul 31. But because the weeks-to-months mapping is not exact (e.g., some months have more than 4 weeks, partial weeks, etc.), if we had mapped that plan out generically week-by-week in the spreadsheet, it would have totaled 26 weeks (4 weeks/month, at 6.5 months, gives 26 weeks). The "Original Timeline with CWG Dependency" tabs lists 31 weeks, which has the original 26 weeks plus the 5 additional weeks built into Step 4 in the proposal finalization process. So this is closer to 8 months rather than the 6 number we were discussing on Saturday, if we stick closely to the proposal finalization process and assume that we will need the operational community work periods, which we may or may not. - We’ve included an alternative timeline as well, called Optimized, to respond to what people were saying in the room about optimizing and parallelizing our work. There is a note on the spreadsheet itself that explains the optimizations. We would need to decide as a group about whether we want to go down the "Original with CWG Dependency" path or the Optimized path. All of the steps are still there and they use the previously defined time frames, but they occur more in parallel. Please send your feedback and opinions about the documents. Thanks, Alissa

Alissa, It seems to me that some people are pushing to squeeze all actions and ignore the fact that in section III of our charter we have stated that Quote III "The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole fits together. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA." We have no right to modify the Charter. There must be some degree of stability .If someone does not care of the basic principle that charter must be respected other are very concerned about disintegrating elements which should be fully intergrated. We may receive the report /proposal from Naming Community by 15 June 2015 .In that case your timeline is inconsistent with reality I am not therefore clear about your updated timeline. It is easy to play with the timeline as one wishes but if it does not match to the critical path Diagram , such update may not be meaningful. Pls kindly maintain your version 6 until we carefully discuss the impact of the proposal from Naming Community on our work There are considerable activities on the whole process and we need to use our limited time efficiently Regards Kavouss 2015-02-08 9:11 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Patrik, Mohamed, the secretariat and I have worked on an edited version of the proposal finalization process and a new timeline spreadsheet that corresponds to the edits (attached and in Dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zmvchgfl7fi2al/proposal-finalization-process-v6-a... and https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0 ).
In the proposal finalization process:
- The sub-steps are now numbered. We added proposed time frames to each of the numbered sub-steps. In the F2F meeting we heard support for maintaining the original time frames, so we did not modify them here. Note, however, that in Step 4 this is basically impossible — we allotted ourselves 4 weeks to obtain public comments, analyze them, send issues to the communities, and produce the final proposal! We put a note in about that being unrealistic.
- In steps 1 and 2, we have reversed the order of the “if” clauses concerning whether or not operational community work is needed. It is much easier to depict the steps graphically if the potential OC work is listed first and then the milestone is at the end. We didn’t change any of the substance, just the order in which the words appear.
- For steps that are milestones, they say “milestone” rather than listing a time span.
In the timeline spreadsheet:
- We depicted the original timeline/time spans, as reflected in the edited proposal finalization process, in two ways — first on two separate sheets, and then on one combined sheet. Not sure which one is easier for people to follow so we included both.
- I counted up the weeks in our original plan and it was about 28 weeks, or 6.5 months, from Jan 15 to Jul 31. But because the weeks-to-months mapping is not exact (e.g., some months have more than 4 weeks, partial weeks, etc.), if we had mapped that plan out generically week-by-week in the spreadsheet, it would have totaled 26 weeks (4 weeks/month, at 6.5 months, gives 26 weeks). The "Original Timeline with CWG Dependency" tabs lists 31 weeks, which has the original 26 weeks plus the 5 additional weeks built into Step 4 in the proposal finalization process. So this is closer to 8 months rather than the 6 number we were discussing on Saturday, if we stick closely to the proposal finalization process and assume that we will need the operational community work periods, which we may or may not.
- We’ve included an alternative timeline as well, called Optimized, to respond to what people were saying in the room about optimizing and parallelizing our work. There is a note on the spreadsheet itself that explains the optimizations. We would need to decide as a group about whether we want to go down the "Original with CWG Dependency" path or the Optimized path. All of the steps are still there and they use the previously defined time frames, but they occur more in parallel.
Please send your feedback and opinions about the documents.
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Hi Kavouss, Which tab of the spreadsheet are you referring to? The Optimized timeline? Thanks, Alissa On Feb 8, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, It seems to me that some people are pushing to squeeze all actions and ignore the fact that in section III of our charter we have stated that Quote
III "The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole fits together. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA." We have no right to modify the Charter. There must be some degree of stability .If someone does not care of the basic principle that charter must be respected other are very concerned about disintegrating elements which should be fully intergrated. We may receive the report /proposal from Naming Community by 15 June 2015 .In that case your timeline is inconsistent with reality I am not therefore clear about your updated timeline. It is easy to play with the timeline as one wishes but if it does not match to the critical path Diagram , such update may not be meaningful. Pls kindly maintain your version 6 until we carefully discuss the impact of the proposal from Naming Community on our work There are considerable activities on the whole process and we need to use our limited time efficiently Regards Kavouss
2015-02-08 9:11 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: Patrik, Mohamed, the secretariat and I have worked on an edited version of the proposal finalization process and a new timeline spreadsheet that corresponds to the edits (attached and in Dropbox athttps://www.dropbox.com/s/2zmvchgfl7fi2al/proposal-finalization-process-v6-a... and https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0).
In the proposal finalization process:
- The sub-steps are now numbered. We added proposed time frames to each of the numbered sub-steps. In the F2F meeting we heard support for maintaining the original time frames, so we did not modify them here. Note, however, that in Step 4 this is basically impossible — we allotted ourselves 4 weeks to obtain public comments, analyze them, send issues to the communities, and produce the final proposal! We put a note in about that being unrealistic.
- In steps 1 and 2, we have reversed the order of the “if” clauses concerning whether or not operational community work is needed. It is much easier to depict the steps graphically if the potential OC work is listed first and then the milestone is at the end. We didn’t change any of the substance, just the order in which the words appear.
- For steps that are milestones, they say “milestone” rather than listing a time span.
In the timeline spreadsheet:
- We depicted the original timeline/time spans, as reflected in the edited proposal finalization process, in two ways — first on two separate sheets, and then on one combined sheet. Not sure which one is easier for people to follow so we included both.
- I counted up the weeks in our original plan and it was about 28 weeks, or 6.5 months, from Jan 15 to Jul 31. But because the weeks-to-months mapping is not exact (e.g., some months have more than 4 weeks, partial weeks, etc.), if we had mapped that plan out generically week-by-week in the spreadsheet, it would have totaled 26 weeks (4 weeks/month, at 6.5 months, gives 26 weeks). The "Original Timeline with CWG Dependency" tabs lists 31 weeks, which has the original 26 weeks plus the 5 additional weeks built into Step 4 in the proposal finalization process. So this is closer to 8 months rather than the 6 number we were discussing on Saturday, if we stick closely to the proposal finalization process and assume that we will need the operational community work periods, which we may or may not.
- We’ve included an alternative timeline as well, called Optimized, to respond to what people were saying in the room about optimizing and parallelizing our work. There is a note on the spreadsheet itself that explains the optimizations. We would need to decide as a group about whether we want to go down the "Original with CWG Dependency" path or the Optimized path. All of the steps are still there and they use the previously defined time frames, but they occur more in parallel.
Please send your feedback and opinions about the documents.
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Alisaa The last version that you submitted to the ICG with 9 months delay Kavouss 2015-02-08 16:51 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Kavouss,
Which tab of the spreadsheet are you referring to? The Optimized timeline?
Thanks, Alissa
On Feb 8, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, It seems to me that some people are pushing to squeeze all actions and ignore the fact that in section III of our charter we have stated that Quote
III "The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole fits together. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA." We have no right to modify the Charter. There must be some degree of stability .If someone does not care of the basic principle that charter must be respected other are very concerned about disintegrating elements which should be fully intergrated. We may receive the report /proposal from Naming Community by 15 June 2015 .In that case your timeline is inconsistent with reality I am not therefore clear about your updated timeline. It is easy to play with the timeline as one wishes but if it does not match to the critical path Diagram , such update may not be meaningful. Pls kindly maintain your version 6 until we carefully discuss the impact of the proposal from Naming Community on our work There are considerable activities on the whole process and we need to use our limited time efficiently Regards Kavouss
2015-02-08 9:11 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Patrik, Mohamed, the secretariat and I have worked on an edited version of the proposal finalization process and a new timeline spreadsheet that corresponds to the edits (attached and in Dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zmvchgfl7fi2al/proposal-finalization-process-v6-a... and https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0).
In the proposal finalization process:
- The sub-steps are now numbered. We added proposed time frames to each of the numbered sub-steps. In the F2F meeting we heard support for maintaining the original time frames, so we did not modify them here. Note, however, that in Step 4 this is basically impossible — we allotted ourselves 4 weeks to obtain public comments, analyze them, send issues to the communities, and produce the final proposal! We put a note in about that being unrealistic.
- In steps 1 and 2, we have reversed the order of the “if” clauses concerning whether or not operational community work is needed. It is much easier to depict the steps graphically if the potential OC work is listed first and then the milestone is at the end. We didn’t change any of the substance, just the order in which the words appear.
- For steps that are milestones, they say “milestone” rather than listing a time span.
In the timeline spreadsheet:
- We depicted the original timeline/time spans, as reflected in the edited proposal finalization process, in two ways — first on two separate sheets, and then on one combined sheet. Not sure which one is easier for people to follow so we included both.
- I counted up the weeks in our original plan and it was about 28 weeks, or 6.5 months, from Jan 15 to Jul 31. But because the weeks-to-months mapping is not exact (e.g., some months have more than 4 weeks, partial weeks, etc.), if we had mapped that plan out generically week-by-week in the spreadsheet, it would have totaled 26 weeks (4 weeks/month, at 6.5 months, gives 26 weeks). The "Original Timeline with CWG Dependency" tabs lists 31 weeks, which has the original 26 weeks plus the 5 additional weeks built into Step 4 in the proposal finalization process. So this is closer to 8 months rather than the 6 number we were discussing on Saturday, if we stick closely to the proposal finalization process and assume that we will need the operational community work periods, which we may or may not.
- We’ve included an alternative timeline as well, called Optimized, to respond to what people were saying in the room about optimizing and parallelizing our work. There is a note on the spreadsheet itself that explains the optimizations. We would need to decide as a group about whether we want to go down the "Original with CWG Dependency" path or the Optimized path. All of the steps are still there and they use the previously defined time frames, but they occur more in parallel.
Please send your feedback and opinions about the documents.
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Chairs, thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful. I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this. We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope. If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans. I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output. *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this. Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it. Daniel

+ 1 Hartmut Glaser
On 20/02/2015, at 08:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Kavouss, we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these. It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation. You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us. Daniel PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones. Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated. On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Daniel: I did want to clarify one statement in your email. <Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.> From our charter: The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf Best, Jon On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ 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

"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel. Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for appropriateness is necessity. *At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal* coordination. Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions". Daniel On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Daniel: Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability. Efforts to avoid the issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in the sand that need not be drawn.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Best, Jon On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal* coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Jon, can you be specific on what coordination is necessary *at this point in time*? What is it that we should ask CCWG? Further it would help me to understand your point if you could speculate briefly about what questions could become relevant in the near future. Daniel On 20.02.15 14:33 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability. Efforts to avoid the issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in the sand that need not be drawn.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal* coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Daniel: Great questions for the group. All I am saying is that to many of us these issues are inextricably intertwined and any efforts to separate would not be conducive to achieving consensus. I agree with Kavouss who said that we simply need to let the CWG and the CCWG do their work. Let's not distract them, which could cause further delay. Best, Jon On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Jon,
can you be specific on what coordination is necessary *at this point in time*? What is it that we should ask CCWG?
Further it would help me to understand your point if you could speculate briefly about what questions could become relevant in the near future.
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:33 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability. Efforts to avoid the issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in the sand that need not be drawn.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal* coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg > <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote: > > > Chairs, > > thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful. > > I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand > as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of > time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that > did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and > I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs > informed of this. > > We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line > if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high > quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be > implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a > response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it > important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work > as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do > so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this > will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope. > > If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we > should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% > consistent with our earlier stated plans. > > I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary > inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and > output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific > operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN > accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are > absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of > the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the > ICANN board totally independent of our work and output. > > *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to > us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very > complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this. > > Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we > have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the > "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree > to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response > needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not > discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

To me it appears that we completely agree that we should not initiate any formal action/coordination at this point in time. ;-) On 20.02.15 14:45 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
Great questions for the group. All I am saying is that to many of us these issues are inextricably intertwined and any efforts to separate would not be conducive to achieving consensus. I agree with Kavouss who said that we simply need to let the CWG and the CCWG do their work. Let's not distract them, which could cause further delay.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Jon,
can you be specific on what coordination is necessary *at this point in time*? What is it that we should ask CCWG?
Further it would help me to understand your point if you could speculate briefly about what questions could become relevant in the near future.
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:33 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability. Efforts to avoid the issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in the sand that need not be drawn.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal* coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear All > It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in > hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. > Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work > stream 1 of CCWG. > Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid > People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg >> <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote: >> >> >> Chairs, >> >> thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful. >> >> I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand >> as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of >> time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that >> did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and >> I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs >> informed of this. >> >> We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line >> if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high >> quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be >> implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a >> response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it >> important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work >> as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do >> so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this >> will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope. >> >> If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we >> should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% >> consistent with our earlier stated plans. >> >> I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary >> inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and >> output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific >> operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN >> accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are >> absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of >> the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the >> ICANN board totally independent of our work and output. >> >> *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to >> us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very >> complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this. >> >> Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we >> have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the >> "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree >> to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response >> needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not >> discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it. >> >> Daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Glad we have a happy ending :) !! but couldn't resist noting that: If you are of the view that CCWG-Accountability work is an essential part of the final proposal, great: - Larry Strickling noted this - CWG-IANA is coordinating closely with CCWG-Accountability - Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly through the CWG-IANA Names proposal If you are of the view that no direct coordination is needed between ICG and CCWG-Accountability, this is also fine: - There is no direct coordination currently taking place - Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly through the CWG-IANA Names proposal Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 5:22 PM To: Jon Nevett Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates To me it appears that we completely agree that we should not initiate any formal action/coordination at this point in time. ;-) On 20.02.15 14:45 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
Great questions for the group. All I am saying is that to many of us these issues are inextricably intertwined and any efforts to separate would not be conducive to achieving consensus. I agree with Kavouss who said that we simply need to let the CWG and the CCWG do their work. Let's not distract them, which could cause further delay.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Jon,
can you be specific on what coordination is necessary *at this point
in time*? What is it that we should ask CCWG?
Further it would help me to understand your point if you could
speculate briefly about what questions could become relevant in the near future.
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:33 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming
community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability. Efforts to avoid the issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in the sand that need not be drawn.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
<daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for
appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal*
coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work
formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside
a
parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>>
wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a
valid
CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear All > It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in > hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. > Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work > stream 1 of CCWG. > Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid > People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg >> <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote: >> >> >> Chairs, >> >> thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful. >> >> I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand >> as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of >> time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that >> did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and >> I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs >> informed of this. >> >> We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line >> if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high >> quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be >> implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a >> response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it >> important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work >> as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do >> so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this >> will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope. >> >> If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we >> should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% >> consistent with our earlier stated plans. >> >> I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary >> inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and >> output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific >> operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN >> accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are >> absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of >> the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the >> ICANN board totally independent of our work and output. >> >> *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to >> us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very >> complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this. >> >> Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we >> have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the >> "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree >> to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response >> needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not >> discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it. >> >> Daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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 with Manal 100%. Jon
On Feb 23, 2015, at 5:04 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Glad we have a happy ending :) !! but couldn't resist noting that:
If you are of the view that CCWG-Accountability work is an essential part of the final proposal, great: - Larry Strickling noted this - CWG-IANA is coordinating closely with CCWG-Accountability - Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly through the CWG-IANA Names proposal
If you are of the view that no direct coordination is needed between ICG and CCWG-Accountability, this is also fine: - There is no direct coordination currently taking place - Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly through the CWG-IANA Names proposal
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 5:22 PM To: Jon Nevett Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
To me it appears that we completely agree that we should not initiate any formal action/coordination at this point in time. ;-)
On 20.02.15 14:45 , Jon Nevett wrote: Daniel:
Great questions for the group. All I am saying is that to many of us these issues are inextricably intertwined and any efforts to separate would not be conducive to achieving consensus. I agree with Kavouss who said that we simply need to let the CWG and the CCWG do their work. Let's not distract them, which could cause further delay.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Jon,
can you be specific on what coordination is necessary *at this point
in time*? What is it that we should ask CCWG?
Further it would help me to understand your point if you could
speculate briefly about what questions could become relevant in the near future.
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:33 , Jon Nevett wrote: Daniel:
Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming
community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability. Efforts to avoid the issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in the sand that need not be drawn.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
<daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for
appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal*
coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work
formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote: Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside
a
parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
> Kavouss, > > we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid > CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA > to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are > transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these. > > It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in > their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even > its implementation. > > You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in > any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are > willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows > us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they > communicated to us. > > Daniel > > PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, > statements or actions over oblique ones. > > Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it > is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, > while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. > Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear > while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) > Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated. > > > >> On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Dear All >> It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in >> hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. >> Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work >> stream 1 of CCWG. >> Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid >> People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently >> Kavouss >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg >>> <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Chairs, >>> >>> thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful. >>> >>> I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand >>> as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of >>> time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that >>> did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and >>> I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs >>> informed of this. >>> >>> We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line >>> if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high >>> quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be >>> implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a >>> response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it >>> important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work >>> as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do >>> so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this >>> will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope. >>> >>> If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we >>> should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% >>> consistent with our earlier stated plans. >>> >>> I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary >>> inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and >>> output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific >>> operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN >>> accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are >>> absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of >>> the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the >>> ICANN board totally independent of our work and output. >>> >>> *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to >>> us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very >>> complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this. >>> >>> Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we >>> have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the >>> "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree >>> to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response >>> needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not >>> discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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

I would suggest a modification to Daniel's parallel lines hypothesis. We are not sure the lines are fully parallel until the work is over. Thus we should monitor the CCWG work to assure it does not intersect. To stretch the hypothesis beyond workable we also need to assure that there are no ecosystem effects that strongly influence/skew our line as well. Joe Sent from my iPad
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal* coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote: Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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

Hi Joseph:. I agree that we should continue to monitor the CCWG work, which is the role for our two Liaisons to that group. Additionally, there is some cross-over in membership (myself and Keith, for example), so this should be sufficiently covered. Thanks‹ J. On 2/23/15, 8:21 , "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I would suggest a modification to Daniel's parallel lines hypothesis. We are not sure the lines are fully parallel until the work is over. Thus we should monitor the CCWG work to assure it does not intersect. To stretch the hypothesis beyond workable we also need to assure that there are no ecosystem effects that strongly influence/skew our line as well.
Joe
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal* coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote: Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group¹s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG. Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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

I wanted to respond to some of the points below made by Daniel, Martin, Kavouss, and Manal concerning the timeline. I’ve moved them all over to this thread since they are about the substance of the timeline and not our call agenda. Along the lines of what Manal has said, it may be that trying to publish a detailed updated timeline right now is over-specifying things. I think we need to keep in mind the framing that Patrik used when discussing this at the F2F meeting, where the central question was: what are the next steps that the ICG needs to take? Specifically, I think we have two questions to answer: (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? For (1), I think we have good agreement that we should do the following: - Step 2 assessment (including further consultation with the IETF and RIRs as necessary). We have already started this. - Produce a draft combined proposal containing the IETF and RIR proposals - Monitoring and issue-spotting within the CWG proposal development process There appears to be some debate about whether we should also run a public comment process before receiving the CWG proposal. We should discuss that further. For (2), it may be simplest to not provide much detail right now about our plans. We can revisit this question on a regular basis over the coming months as the CWG proposal development process advances. Thus, I would support publishing a brief note along the lines that Manal suggests, rather than trying to update the timeline in detail right now, as long as we make it clear what our next steps are. Alissa On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:38 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
[MI]: As mentioned in Singapore I would be cautious not to set an aggressive timeline and miss or change the deadline again; and would be equally cautious not to set a relaxed timeline that may be misinterpreted as lack of commitment .. I think we need to accurately calculate the necessary time which I believe is a bit difficult with so many critical factors being unclear .. That said is there an urgency for us go live with a new timeline now .. Can't we just: - Add a disclaimer on the original timeline, stating that this was based on receiving the 3 proposals at the same time, and around Jan 15th , 2015 and will be updated in due course as things become clearer - Thank the protocol parameters community and numbers community for the submitted proposals and reiterate ICG's commitment to proceed with steps that can be done independently with both proposals - Thank the names community for the dedication and hard work solving more complex issues, and re-iterate ICG's commitment to closely monitor the process and bring to their attention anything that may help spare us post-submission ICG-CWG iterations ..
On Feb 23, 2015, at 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All To be brief, I support Martin, s views I do nit agree with two consultation fir Protocol and number and only one Name Three three must have two. I also believe that 15 days is too short Minimum 21 days fir each and perhaps the second one 28 days Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2015, at 19:01, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks Alissa,
I’m afraid that I will not be able to join next week’s call (it will be during my night and I am driving the following morning early). I am also away on holiday from tonight until Tuesday late. So I thought it might be useful to put down just a couple of comments on the timeline.
I am basing my points on the optimised sheet. I welcome what you are trying to do so that we have a real sense of delivery by end September. I do not feel greatly convinced…
We obviously do need to show substantive progress by end of September. At the least, we ought to be able to say to NTIA and more widely: 1. This is the direction of travel 2. These are the pieces that need to be finalised 3. This is the timescale for those pieces to be delivered. 4. So this is when the transition could be finalised (and then there is also the implementation period – the more complicated our solution, the longer that stage will take).
On specific points, I am concerned with the way this schedule deals with the two consultation periods. I’m not sure that the first looking at the IETF & RIR pieces and the second the full works really works for me and 15 days for this second one seems unrealistic. Yes, interested parties will only just have gone through the consultation period, but in fact what we will be looking for here is how the different elements will bed together. So shouldn’t we really be looking at step 4.1 ending end week 1 August, all subsequent steps shifting right two blocks and then an iteration for a second consultation to closure as per the previous timescale?
We should also look some time after delivery of the CWG input into the timescale to prepare the right material for NTIA for end September (or more correctly beginning of October when they can start to work on it again).
Thanks and have a good call next week.
Martin
On Feb 20, 2015, at 2:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Chairs,
thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
*If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
Daniel

The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned. I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date. I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities." Daniel On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ...

Daniel, I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor. Michael On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned.
I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date.
I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
Daniel
On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Agreed, this could be received as the ICG "advising" the CWG on its output. They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational community's response will be larger and more complex than the others. Thanks- J. From: michael niebel <fmniebel@gmail.com<mailto:fmniebel@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15 To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> Cc: ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates Daniel, I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor. Michael On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote: The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned. I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date. I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities." Daniel On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote: ... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ... _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

The phrasing could be adjusted to assure the tone is advisory. Something along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names community's review of existing community proposals and other related work of the ICG in preparation of its proposal to assure, to the extent possible, both consistency and avoidance of conflicts with existing proposals. Such a review for consistency and conflict avoidance process within the Names proposal development process would enable us to assemble the final proposal more expeditiously. On 2/24/2015 1:24 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
Agreed, this could be received as the ICG “advising” the CWG on its output.
They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational community’s response will be larger and more complex than the others.
Thanks—
J.
From: michael niebel <fmniebel@gmail.com <mailto:fmniebel@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15 To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> Cc: ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
Daniel,
I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor.
Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned.
I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date.
I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
Daniel
On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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

The phrasing - although softened e.g by "to the extent possible" - would still imply that it is the "latecomer" community that would have to adapt to the "first mover" proposals to assure consistency. Best Michael On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:42 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com
wrote:
The phrasing could be adjusted to assure the tone is advisory. Something along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names community's review of existing community proposals and other related work of the ICG in preparation of its proposal to assure, to the extent possible, both consistency and avoidance of conflicts with existing proposals. Such a review for consistency and conflict avoidance process within the Names proposal development process would enable us to assemble the final proposal more expeditiously. On 2/24/2015 1:24 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
Agreed, this could be received as the ICG “advising” the CWG on its output.
They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational community’s response will be larger and more complex than the others.
Thanks—
J.
From: michael niebel <fmniebel@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15 To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
Daniel,
I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor.
Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned.
I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date.
I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
Daniel
On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

to the extent appropriate? It is not unreasonable for us to ask that they take account of what's already been drafted, that doesn't bind them to it merely informs them of the potential benefits of drafting that could avoid conflicts. On 2/24/2015 3:49 PM, michael niebel wrote:
The phrasing - although softened e.g by "to the extent possible" - would still imply that it is the "latecomer" community that would have to adapt to the "first mover" proposals to assure consistency.
Best Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:42 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote:
The phrasing could be adjusted to assure the tone is advisory. Something along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names community's review of existing community proposals and other related work of the ICG in preparation of its proposal to assure, to the extent possible, both consistency and avoidance of conflicts with existing proposals. Such a review for consistency and conflict avoidance process within the Names proposal development process would enable us to assemble the final proposal more expeditiously. On 2/24/2015 1:24 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
Agreed, this could be received as the ICG “advising” the CWG on its output.
They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational community’s response will be larger and more complex than the others.
Thanks—
J.
From: michael niebel <fmniebel@gmail.com <mailto:fmniebel@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15 To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> Cc: ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
Daniel,
I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor.
Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned.
I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date.
I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
Daniel
On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear All, Some of us are bipolar that means speaks in such a way that mtheir vierws are always abstantive. Such course of action may not be very productive that someone d. Athis eems not very apprerciated speak bipolary. Either we have view one or view two WE May have another view between the two That is also ggod Kavouss 2015-02-24 22:42 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
to the extent appropriate? It is not unreasonable for us to ask that they take account of what's already been drafted, that doesn't bind them to it merely informs them of the potential benefits of drafting that could avoid conflicts.
On 2/24/2015 3:49 PM, michael niebel wrote:
The phrasing - although softened e.g by "to the extent possible" - would still imply that it is the "latecomer" community that would have to adapt to the "first mover" proposals to assure consistency.
Best Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:42 PM, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
The phrasing could be adjusted to assure the tone is advisory. Something along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names community's review of existing community proposals and other related work of the ICG in preparation of its proposal to assure, to the extent possible, both consistency and avoidance of conflicts with existing proposals. Such a review for consistency and conflict avoidance process within the Names proposal development process would enable us to assemble the final proposal more expeditiously. On 2/24/2015 1:24 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
Agreed, this could be received as the ICG “advising” the CWG on its output.
They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational community’s response will be larger and more complex than the others.
Thanks—
J.
From: michael niebel <fmniebel@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15 To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
Daniel,
I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor.
Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned.
I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date.
I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
Daniel
On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://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

to the extent appropriate? It is not unreasonable for us to ask that they take account of what's already been drafted, that doesn't bind them to it merely informs them of the potential benefits of drafting that could avoid conflicts. MM: We didn’t say this to the CRISP team even though we received the IETF proposal first. And It’s a good thing we didn’t, CRISP came up with a slightly different take on the IPR issues and IETF was willing to adjust to accommodate it

I do not disagree, but it would seem to me to be useful in our role as a Coordination Group to make sure that the three different groups think a bit about the other teams’ work – there will certainly be some need to look for areas of convergence in the different approaches and the earlier they think about differences, the more likely we will be to have the discrepancies addressed. Incidentally, the other direction is also important – the numbers and protocol parameters should also think about how to respond to the ideas coming from the names community. If we wait until the names proposal is in, positions will be fixed and there will be little of the flexibility that Milton’s example shows. MB From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 25 February 2015 04:03 To: joseph alhadeff; michael niebel Cc: IANA Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates to the extent appropriate? It is not unreasonable for us to ask that they take account of what's already been drafted, that doesn't bind them to it merely informs them of the potential benefits of drafting that could avoid conflicts. MM: We didn’t say this to the CRISP team even though we received the IETF proposal first. And It’s a good thing we didn’t, CRISP came up with a slightly different take on the IPR issues and IETF was willing to adjust to accommodate it

Dear All, We need to be patient a little bit and monitor what CWG is doing. We should not impose nor instruct CWG what to do. They are very busy and doing what their community agree to do. Protocol and numbers are making panic and pushing for something which a) is not consistent with our charter and b) might produce unintended conséquences. Please be patient Regards Kavouss 2015-02-26 18:29 GMT+01:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
I do not disagree, but it would seem to me to be useful in our role as a Coordination Group to make sure that the three different groups think a bit about the other teams’ work – there will certainly be some need to look for areas of convergence in the different approaches and the earlier they think about differences, the more likely we will be to have the discrepancies addressed.
Incidentally, the other direction is also important – the numbers and protocol parameters should also think about how to respond to the ideas coming from the names community.
If we wait until the names proposal is in, positions will be fixed and there will be little of the flexibility that Milton’s example shows.
MB
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller *Sent:* 25 February 2015 04:03 *To:* joseph alhadeff; michael niebel *Cc:* IANA *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
to the extent appropriate? It is not unreasonable for us to ask that they take account of what's already been drafted, that doesn't bind them to it merely informs them of the potential benefits of drafting that could avoid conflicts.
MM: We didn’t say this to the CRISP team even though we received the IETF proposal first. And It’s a good thing we didn’t, CRISP came up with a slightly different take on the IPR issues and IETF was willing to adjust to accommodate it
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

I think the point here is not about first-comers having priority, but rather that all proposals need to minimise the impact that they may have on others. It was an assumption of the entire RFP process that we could receive 3 proposals which would be developed independently (or largely independently), and assemble them into a single cohesive proposal, without major changes to any of them. It is clear I think that the 2 proposals that we have received make no assumptions about IANA names registries and functions, and impose no changes or restrictions on those functions. We might assume that the remaining proposal will do the same, and say nothing, for fear of appearing prescriptive. However, it does appear possible that the names proposal might include or imply changes to the IANA structure or functions which have wider impacts, and which make a reconciliation of the 3 proposals impossible. I do think it may be necessary for the ICG to issue some kind of reminder of our expectations, and of the difficulty we will have if the names proposal does impact severely on the others. Again it is not a question of the first proposals having priority, but of all proposals needing to respect the independence and integrity of the others. Paul. On 25 February 2015 05:49:39 GMT+09:00, michael niebel <fmniebel@gmail.com> wrote:
The phrasing - although softened e.g by "to the extent possible" - would still imply that it is the "latecomer" community that would have to adapt to the "first mover" proposals to assure consistency.
Best Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:42 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com
wrote:
The phrasing could be adjusted to assure the tone is advisory. Something along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names community's review of existing community proposals and other related work of the ICG in preparation of its proposal to assure, to the extent possible, both consistency and avoidance of conflicts with existing proposals. Such a review for consistency and conflict avoidance process within the Names proposal development process would enable us to assemble the final proposal more expeditiously. On 2/24/2015 1:24 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
Agreed, this could be received as the ICG “advising” the CWG on its output.
They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational community’s response will be larger and more complex than the others.
Thanks—
J.
From: michael niebel <fmniebel@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15 To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
Daniel,
I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor.
Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable
and I
support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned.
I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date.
I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
Daniel
On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://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
-- Paul Wilson, Director General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net

I agree with Michael – Daniel’s proposed statement is a highly prescriptive form of advice that effectively takes sides in ongoing controversies within the CWG about transition models. --MM I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor. Michael On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote: [snip] I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
participants (12)
-
Alissa Cooper
-
Daniel Karrenberg
-
Hartmut Glaser
-
James M. Bladel
-
Jon Nevett
-
Joseph Alhadeff
-
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Manal Ismail
-
Martin Boyle
-
michael niebel
-
Milton L Mueller
-
Paul Wilson