Fwd: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG
I wanted to share the email exchange below with the ICG. Mohamed, Patrick and I were under the impression that the email we received from Jonathan and Byron was private correspondence, and I responded privately on behalf of the three of us accordingly, but it seems that the original message has been made public <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+to+ICG+--+24+Se...> so we wanted to make sure the ICG was aware of the full exchange. I will follow up with Jonathan and Byron so that we make sure to have clarity in the future about when communications are intended for the full ICG and when not. Alissa Begin forwarded message:
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Subject: Re: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG Date: September 25, 2014 at 10:17:35 AM PDT To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>, <mbashir@mbash.net>, 'Patrik Falstrom -' <paf@frobbit.se> Cc: Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca>, <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, 'Milton Mueller -' <mueller@syr.edu>, 'James Bladel -' <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Keith Drazek -' <kdrazek@verisign.com>, 'Jon Nevett -' <jon@donuts.co>, <mnuduma@yahoo.com>, Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk>, "'Xiaodong Lee:'" <xl@cnnic.cn>, <keith@internetnz.net.nz>
Jonathan, Byron,
Thank you for the update. I realize that there have been extensive efforts put into developing a somewhat novel process on short order for the purposes of developing a transition proposal, and I very much appreciate the effort that you and your colleagues in the other constituencies have put into this.
Regarding the timeline, we did designate January 15 (and all of the other milestones) as a “target” so as to acknowledge the potential need for some wiggle room on either side to accommodate unforeseen circumstances that may arise in the various communities. With that said, the January 15 target was deliberately chosen with the rest of the consultation and coordination steps in mind, and with a very strong emphasis on completion of the transition by September 30, 2015. As I noted at the first ICG meeting, I think the political likelihood of getting a second chance to transition after that date are extremely slim, and the ICG as a whole seems quite motivated to have the transition completed next year.
As such, while small delays can probably accommodated, delays on the order of one month or more (e.g., from mid-January to mid-February) will present difficulties for the rest of the coordination process that the ICG has committed to, and could put a timely completion of the full transition at risk. I realize that face-to-face meetings have been a key mode of doing business in the past, but I would urge you to consider alternative methods for completing a transition proposal for names that would not require postponement until ICANN 52 if at all possible. If the processes in the operational communities get too far out of sync, the ICG may need to proceed with its coordination with only a subset of proposals to assemble and finalize. That would be far from an ideal situation.
In any event, I’m very glad to hear that the CWG is getting started. Feel free to send RFP questions if you have them.
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/24/14, 7:00 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed,
We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014.
We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming community. At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and the SSAC came together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter for what will become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to be able to finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter has been approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance with its own rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as members and observers, again according to each SO and AC’s rules and procedures. In addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG and is actively considering the invitation. With the establishment of the CWG, we expect to be able to provide a proposal from the naming community.
While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement of such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is necessarily time consuming. Even though many of the chartering SO/AC’s have yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members, we have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG meeting right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another opportunity to meet face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not anticipate that the CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without at least one such face to face meeting and potentially a public consultation of the community. Please also be aware that before a proposal could be formally transmitted to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the chartering SO/AC’s to approve it through their respective processes.
Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time and energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some would say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for formal proposals set out in the ICG’s RFP. We do hope that shortly upon formation of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed timetable. It follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the RFP or request any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but hopefully you are willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may have following its formation.
The CWG’s charter provides for a very open process, including no limitations on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our meetings. We have no doubt that the naming community members on the ICG will actively monitor the work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular updates on our progress. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, we would be pleased hear from you and to respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland Co-Chairs Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship transition proposal
Alissa, Thank you very much in sharing this view with us after you had the clearance mechanism. What Jonathan and Byron indicated is a fact and need careful consideration. A French proverb says" vite fait, mal fait" i.e. quickly done ,badly done. On the other hand we have publicly announce 15 January 2015 a date which was originally 31 December 2014 . It should be noted that any proposal submitted to NTIA which does not properly address the issue of transition would have the risk of not being accepted. What we could suggest to Jonathan and Byron are 1.to use the ICANN 51 opportunity to discuss as mush as possible the matter Secondly, 2.to try organizing few conference calls /virtual meetings with different time zone allowing wider participation between ICANN 51 and end of the year ,say 01 December . Thirdly 3..should still be a difficulty to conclude then make ICG aware of that and then we should think of any option available 4.To consider the postponement of delivery of our final report to NTIA We need to discuss this issue at our third f2f meeting in LA I might have other proposal but I will submit that once we meet at LA Kavouss 2014-10-03 0:59 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
I wanted to share the email exchange below with the ICG. Mohamed, Patrick and I were under the impression that the email we received from Jonathan and Byron was private correspondence, and I responded privately on behalf of the three of us accordingly, but it seems that the original message has been made public < https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Letter+to+ICG+--+24+Se...> so we wanted to make sure the ICG was aware of the full exchange.
I will follow up with Jonathan and Byron so that we make sure to have clarity in the future about when communications are intended for the full ICG and when not.
Alissa
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> *Subject: **Re: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG* *Date: *September 25, 2014 at 10:17:35 AM PDT *To: *Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>, < mbashir@mbash.net>, 'Patrik Falstrom -' <paf@frobbit.se> *Cc: *Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca>, < wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, 'Milton Mueller -' <mueller@syr.edu>, 'James Bladel -' <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Keith Drazek -' < kdrazek@verisign.com>, 'Jon Nevett -' <jon@donuts.co>, <mnuduma@yahoo.com>, Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk>, "'Xiaodong Lee:'" <xl@cnnic.cn>, <keith@internetnz.net.nz>
Jonathan, Byron,
Thank you for the update. I realize that there have been extensive efforts put into developing a somewhat novel process on short order for the purposes of developing a transition proposal, and I very much appreciate the effort that you and your colleagues in the other constituencies have put into this.
Regarding the timeline, we did designate January 15 (and all of the other milestones) as a “target” so as to acknowledge the potential need for some wiggle room on either side to accommodate unforeseen circumstances that may arise in the various communities. With that said, the January 15 target was deliberately chosen with the rest of the consultation and coordination steps in mind, and with a very strong emphasis on completion of the transition by September 30, 2015. As I noted at the first ICG meeting, I think the political likelihood of getting a second chance to transition after that date are extremely slim, and the ICG as a whole seems quite motivated to have the transition completed next year.
As such, while small delays can probably accommodated, delays on the order of one month or more (e.g., from mid-January to mid-February) will present difficulties for the rest of the coordination process that the ICG has committed to, and could put a timely completion of the full transition at risk. I realize that face-to-face meetings have been a key mode of doing business in the past, but I would urge you to consider alternative methods for completing a transition proposal for names that would not require postponement until ICANN 52 if at all possible. If the processes in the operational communities get too far out of sync, the ICG may need to proceed with its coordination with only a subset of proposals to assemble and finalize. That would be far from an ideal situation.
In any event, I’m very glad to hear that the CWG is getting started. Feel free to send RFP questions if you have them.
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/24/14, 7:00 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed,
We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014.
We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming community. At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and the SSAC came together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter for what will become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to be able to finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter has been approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance with its own rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as members and observers, again according to each SO and AC’s rules and procedures. In addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG and is actively considering the invitation. With the establishment of the CWG, we expect to be able to provide a proposal from the naming community.
While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement of such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is necessarily time consuming. Even though many of the chartering SO/AC’s have yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members, we have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG meeting right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another opportunity to meet face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not anticipate that the CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without at least one such face to face meeting and potentially a public consultation of the community. Please also be aware that before a proposal could be formally transmitted to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the chartering SO/AC’s to approve it through their respective processes.
Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time and energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some would say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for formal proposals set out in the ICG’s RFP. We do hope that shortly upon formation of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed timetable. It follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the RFP or request any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but hopefully you are willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may have following its formation.
The CWG’s charter provides for a very open process, including no limitations on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our meetings. We have no doubt that the naming community members on the ICG will actively monitor the work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular updates on our progress. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, we would be pleased hear from you and to respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland Co-Chairs Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship transition proposal
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kavouss, colleagues, We have agreed and published a time line. We would be ill advised to formally discuss revising it before we even have formally heared significant and concrete reasons to revise it and had time to consider them. I have not yet heared any. Therefore I do not support any formal discussion about changing the time line at this point and I caution against a formal discussion of this topic during our upcoming LA meeting. Daniel Note well that personally I have spoken against this time line before we agreed it. Consult the minutes of our first f2f meeting for my reasons. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
Oops! The second part of this message was intended to go to Kavouss only. I did not intend to make a point of it. D --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 03.10.2014, at 16:27, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Kavouss, colleagues,
We have agreed and published a time line. We would be ill advised to formally discuss revising it before we even have formally heared significant and concrete reasons to revise it and had time to consider them. I have not yet heared any. Therefore I do not support any formal discussion about changing the time line at this point and I caution against a formal discussion of this topic during our upcoming LA meeting.
Daniel
Note well that personally I have spoken against this time line before we agreed it. Consult the minutes of our first f2f meeting for my reasons.
Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
Daniel You misunderstoofd me, I did not propose to discuss changing the deadline. I simply proposed to discuss the message7letter received from Jonathan and Byron . You have noted that I proposed to advise them to make evry effort such as arranging virtual meeting/ conference calls to resolve problems and avoid the need to delay the reply Please read my message. Nothuiing wrong to discuss the message sent to Alissa to find out whether other measures ,aparat from increased number of conference calls7 virtual meetings, could be suggested I hope I am now more clearer and confirm /agree with your view point as I have explored Kavouss 2014-10-03 16:40 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
Oops! The second part of this message was intended to go to Kavouss only. I did not intend to make a point of it.
D
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 03.10.2014, at 16:27, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Kavouss, colleagues,
We have agreed and published a time line. We would be ill advised to formally discuss revising it before we even have formally heared significant and concrete reasons to revise it and had time to consider them. I have not yet heared any. Therefore I do not support any formal discussion about changing the time line at this point and I caution against a formal discussion of this topic during our upcoming LA meeting.
Daniel
Note well that personally I have spoken against this time line before we agreed it. Consult the minutes of our first f2f meeting for my reasons.
Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
Kavouss, I am happy that we agree how to handle this. Accordingly, let us drop the whole subject until ICG hears substantive input on the timeline. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 03.10.2014, at 19:35, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel You misunderstoofd me, I did not propose to discuss changing the deadline. I simply proposed to discuss the message7letter received from Jonathan and Byron . You have noted that I proposed to advise them to make evry effort such as arranging virtual meeting/ conference calls to resolve problems and avoid the need to delay the reply Please read my message. Nothuiing wrong to discuss the message sent to Alissa to find out whether other measures ,aparat from increased number of conference calls7 virtual meetings, could be suggested
I hope I am now more clearer and confirm /agree with your view point as I have explored Kavouss
2014-10-03 16:40 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
Oops! The second part of this message was intended to go to Kavouss only. I did not intend to make a point of it.
D
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 03.10.2014, at 16:27, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Kavouss, colleagues,
We have agreed and published a time line. We would be ill advised to formally discuss revising it before we even have formally heared significant and concrete reasons to revise it and had time to consider them. I have not yet heared any. Therefore I do not support any formal discussion about changing the time line at this point and I caution against a formal discussion of this topic during our upcoming LA meeting.
Daniel
Note well that personally I have spoken against this time line before we agreed it. Consult the minutes of our first f2f meeting for my reasons.
Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
participants (3)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Kavouss Arasteh