Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment. (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week) (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21) (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> Thanks, Alissa
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 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 19 February 2015 16:44 To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment. (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week) (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21) (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> Thanks, Alissa
In addition I wonder whether we shouldn’t look again to the IETF and RIR proposals from the implementation point of view which Larry Strickling raised in Singapore. If this is covered by agenda item (4) then I’m ok. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Martin Boyle Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:01 PM To: Alissa Cooper ; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference 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 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 19 February 2015 16:44 To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment. (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week) (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21) (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> Thanks, Alissa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes, please raise this under item 4 for discussion. Alissa On Feb 20, 2015, at 2:49 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
In addition I wonder whether we shouldn’t look again to the IETF and RIR proposals from the implementation point of view which Larry Strickling raised in Singapore.
If this is covered by agenda item (4) then I’m ok.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 19 February 2015 16:44 To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment.
(1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week)
(2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>.
(3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21)
(4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html>
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 19 February 2015 16:44 To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment.
(1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week)
(2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>.
(3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21)
(4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html>
Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I would also support concerns related to the second round of comments, I would call this the whole community consensus round and believe we will need every opportunity to both obtain and be able to credibly demonstrate our consensus process. Not within our group for which 2weeks is ok, but across all communities... As governments outside the GAC representatives to ICG have not been involved in this process directly, I wonder if our GAC representatives would have any thoughts on the individual government's needs to review and their timing? Do we need outreach to them with a request for more active observation of/comment on the process and the interim deliverables or are they all relying on the 5 representatives? Joe Sent from my iPad
On Feb 23, 2015, at 7:52 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
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 19 February 2015 16:44 To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment.
(1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week)
(2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>.
(3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21)
(4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html>
Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Joe .. Sincere apologies for the very late reply .. I have just noticed the second part of your below email regarding governments who are not GAC members .. To a certain extent, I try to share information on different mailing lists that include a few such governments .. So far it's more of an awareness / information sharing channel .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:12 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference I would also support concerns related to the second round of comments, I would call this the whole community consensus round and believe we will need every opportunity to both obtain and be able to credibly demonstrate our consensus process. Not within our group for which 2weeks is ok, but across all communities... As governments outside the GAC representatives to ICG have not been involved in this process directly, I wonder if our GAC representatives would have any thoughts on the individual government's needs to review and their timing? Do we need outreach to them with a request for more active observation of/comment on the process and the interim deliverables or are they all relying on the 5 representatives? Joe Sent from my iPad On Feb 23, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 19 February 2015 16:44 To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment. (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week) (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21) (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Alissa .. Unfortunately I won't be able to join the call as I'll be on the road for an early and distant meeting .. I'm sure no one will be interested in hearing Cairo morning traffic on the call J !! Comments on the agenda inline below .. Kind regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 6:44 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment. (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week) [MI]: I'm fine with the minutes .. I would also suggest adding 'Review action items from previous call/meeting' as a permanent agenda item in order to make sure nothing agreed was overlooked .. (2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>. [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 .. (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21) [MI]: Just to note that I've noticed the topic already being discussed on the names community mailing list .. (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> [MI]: I agree with Wolf-Ulrich's suggestion to "look again to the IETF and RIR proposals from the implementation point of view which Larry Strickling raised in Singapore." (5) Next Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires [MI]: If time allows, I suggest adding this as an agenda item to agree whether the meeting will be before or after the ICANN week .. I recall this was discussed in Singapore but not concluded .. If no further discussion is needed maybe a Doodle poll will serve the purpose .. and if time doesn't allow we can definitely discuss online .. The reason I brought this up is that the hotels are already announced and it will be good to know early on the dates of any additional days .. As I will not be on the call, I'll share my opinion here .. If I recall correctly, we've met 'after' in Istanbul (and LA?) and 'before' in Singapore .. I think meeting before was useful in aligning views, making sure everyone is on the same page, agreeing on messages that need to be conveyed, etc ... .. Having said that, and if ICG members' flights allow, a couple of hours to wrap up, at the end, after the public forum, may also be useful .. Thanks, Alissa
On 23 feb 2015, at 12:38, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
(5) Next Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires [MI]: If time allows, I suggest adding this as an agenda item to agree whether the meeting will be before or after the ICANN week .. I recall this was discussed in Singapore but not concluded .. If no further discussion is needed maybe a Doodle poll will serve the purpose .. and if time doesn't allow we can definitely discuss online .. The reason I brought this up is that the hotels are already announced and it will be good to know early on the dates of any additional days ..
As I will not be on the call, I'll share my opinion here .. If I recall correctly, we've met 'after' in Istanbul (and LA?) and 'before' in Singapore .. I think meeting before was useful in aligning views, making sure everyone is on the same page, agreeing on messages that need to be conveyed, etc … .. Having said that, and if ICG members' flights allow, a couple of hours to wrap up, at the end, after the public forum, may also be useful ..
This conclusion of yours matches my view of the consensus of ICG. Specifically now when data we have say that CWG Names will really try hard to have something ready before BA. The only reason for us to meet after BA was, according to what I heard, if we believe Names CWG explicitly will deliver during that week. What I have done is to request information about ability for us to have our meeting Thursday-Friday before ICANN week. With alternatives Friday-Saturday before and Friday-Saturday after the ICANN meeting. I hope to have data on the call Wednesday. Reason for Thursday-Friday was simply that so many ICANN activities that involves so many ICG members (for example gNSO) happens Saturday. Patrik
Thanks a million Patrik !! Kind regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:09 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
On 23 feb 2015, at 12:38, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
(5) Next Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires [MI]: If time allows, I suggest adding this as an agenda item to agree whether the meeting will be before or after the ICANN week .. I recall this was discussed in Singapore but not concluded .. If no further discussion is needed maybe a Doodle poll will serve the purpose .. and if time doesn't allow we can definitely discuss online .. The reason I brought this up is that the hotels are already announced and it will be good to know early on the dates of any additional days ..
As I will not be on the call, I'll share my opinion here .. If I recall correctly, we've met 'after' in Istanbul (and LA?) and 'before' in Singapore .. I think meeting before was useful in aligning views, making sure everyone is on the same page, agreeing on messages that need to be conveyed, etc … .. Having said that, and if ICG members' flights allow, a couple of hours to wrap up, at the end, after the public forum, may also be useful ..
This conclusion of yours matches my view of the consensus of ICG. Specifically now when data we have say that CWG Names will really try hard to have something ready before BA. The only reason for us to meet after BA was, according to what I heard, if we believe Names CWG explicitly will deliver during that week. What I have done is to request information about ability for us to have our meeting Thursday-Friday before ICANN week. With alternatives Friday-Saturday before and Friday-Saturday after the ICANN meeting. I hope to have data on the call Wednesday. Reason for Thursday-Friday was simply that so many ICANN activities that involves so many ICG members (for example gNSO) happens Saturday. Patrik
Manal, I very much like your suggestion of having the bulk of our face-to-face time be prior to ICANN 53 and also scheduling a working session of a few hours in length at the end of the week (some time between the Wednesday and Friday of ICANN week, June 24, 25, or 26). Alissa On Feb 23, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Thanks a million Patrik !! Kind regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:09 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
On 23 feb 2015, at 12:38, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
(5) Next Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires [MI]: If time allows, I suggest adding this as an agenda item to agree whether the meeting will be before or after the ICANN week .. I recall this was discussed in Singapore but not concluded .. If no further discussion is needed maybe a Doodle poll will serve the purpose .. and if time doesn't allow we can definitely discuss online .. The reason I brought this up is that the hotels are already announced and it will be good to know early on the dates of any additional days ..
As I will not be on the call, I'll share my opinion here .. If I recall correctly, we've met 'after' in Istanbul (and LA?) and 'before' in Singapore .. I think meeting before was useful in aligning views, making sure everyone is on the same page, agreeing on messages that need to be conveyed, etc … .. Having said that, and if ICG members' flights allow, a couple of hours to wrap up, at the end, after the public forum, may also be useful ..
This conclusion of yours matches my view of the consensus of ICG. Specifically now when data we have say that CWG Names will really try hard to have something ready before BA. The only reason for us to meet after BA was, according to what I heard, if we believe Names CWG explicitly will deliver during that week.
What I have done is to request information about ability for us to have our meeting Thursday-Friday before ICANN week. With alternatives Friday-Saturday before and Friday-Saturday after the ICANN meeting. I hope to have data on the call Wednesday. Reason for Thursday-Friday was simply that so many ICANN activities that involves so many ICG members (for example gNSO) happens Saturday.
Patrik
Yes Patrik Last time we missed part of GAC meeting held at 14,00 hours Saturday. Better to leave Saturday afternoon free. No problem if Friday and Saturday morning only Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Feb 2015, at 13:08, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 23 feb 2015, at 12:38, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
(5) Next Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires [MI]: If time allows, I suggest adding this as an agenda item to agree whether the meeting will be before or after the ICANN week .. I recall this was discussed in Singapore but not concluded .. If no further discussion is needed maybe a Doodle poll will serve the purpose .. and if time doesn't allow we can definitely discuss online .. The reason I brought this up is that the hotels are already announced and it will be good to know early on the dates of any additional days ..
As I will not be on the call, I'll share my opinion here .. If I recall correctly, we've met 'after' in Istanbul (and LA?) and 'before' in Singapore .. I think meeting before was useful in aligning views, making sure everyone is on the same page, agreeing on messages that need to be conveyed, etc … .. Having said that, and if ICG members' flights allow, a couple of hours to wrap up, at the end, after the public forum, may also be useful ..
This conclusion of yours matches my view of the consensus of ICG. Specifically now when data we have say that CWG Names will really try hard to have something ready before BA. The only reason for us to meet after BA was, according to what I heard, if we believe Names CWG explicitly will deliver during that week.
What I have done is to request information about ability for us to have our meeting Thursday-Friday before ICANN week. With alternatives Friday-Saturday before and Friday-Saturday after the ICANN meeting. I hope to have data on the call Wednesday. Reason for Thursday-Friday was simply that so many ICANN activities that involves so many ICG members (for example gNSO) happens Saturday.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks, Manal. Some responses are inline. On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:38 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Thanks Alissa .. Unfortunately I won't be able to join the call as I'll be on the road for an early and distant meeting .. I'm sure no one will be interested in hearing Cairo morning traffic on the call J !! Comments on the agenda inline below .. Kind regards --Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 6:44 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment.
(1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 (minutes should be available for review this week)
[MI]: I'm fine with the minutes .. I would also suggest adding 'Review action items from previous call/meeting' as a permanent agenda item in order to make sure nothing agreed was overlooked ..
Good idea.
(2) ICG timeline discussion Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>.
[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 ..
I would like to bring this discussion over to the thread about the timeline - will respond there.
(3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21)
[MI]: Just to note that I've noticed the topic already being discussed on the names community mailing list ..
(4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html> [MI]: I agree with Wolf-Ulrich's suggestion to "look again to the IETF and RIR proposals from the implementation point of view which Larry Strickling raised in Singapore."
(5) Next Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires [MI]: If time allows, I suggest adding this as an agenda item to agree whether the meeting will be before or after the ICANN week .. I recall this was discussed in Singapore but not concluded .. If no further discussion is needed maybe a Doodle poll will serve the purpose .. and if time doesn't allow we can definitely discuss online .. The reason I brought this up is that the hotels are already announced and it will be good to know early on the dates of any additional days ..
As I will not be on the call, I'll share my opinion here .. If I recall correctly, we've met 'after' in Istanbul (and LA?) and 'before' in Singapore .. I think meeting before was useful in aligning views, making sure everyone is on the same page, agreeing on messages that need to be conveyed, etc … .. Having said that, and if ICG members' flights allow, a couple of hours to wrap up, at the end, after the public forum, may also be useful ..
This item has been added to the end of the agenda. Thanks, Alissa
Thanks, Alissa
participants (7)
-
Alissa Cooper
-
Joseph Alhadeff
-
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Manal Ismail
-
Martin Boyle
-
Patrik Fältström
-
WUKnoben