Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “numbers and protocols” proposals. This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: ICANN52 Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: a.. see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. >> He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability. Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly. a.. Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Just recognized that my response to this thread did not address Wolf-Ulrich's point regarding 'implementation' .. I'm not sure whether Wolf-Ulrich is referring to the same session, but I recall that this was also raised as a question by Larry to the co-chairs of the CWG at a GAC session, I believe on Sun. .. I agree with Milton this needs further scrutiny, as we need to have a common understanding on what we mean by implementation here and how does this align with NTIA's expectation .. Kind regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:52 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “numbers and protocols” proposals. This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: ICANN52 Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: * see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. >> He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability. Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly. * Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Further to the below exchange, here is what Larry said regarding implementation in the IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountability> on Sun. .. “AND I ALSO ASK THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSIDER THAT GIVEN THE NEED TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND TEST THESE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO A FINAL TRANSITION, CAN THEY GET IT ALL DONE IN A TIME FRAME CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTATIONS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS?I ASKED TODAY AT A MEETING SOME REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CWG WERE PRESENT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE. AND I HAVE TO SAY NO ONE COULD ANSWER THAT, AND I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE FACTORED INTO THE TIME FRAME FOR TRANSITION. AND IF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR TO IMPLEMENT, WELL, THAT WILL DELAY THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION OF THE IANA FUNCTIONS.” Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:18 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Just recognized that my response to this thread did not address Wolf-Ulrich's point regarding 'implementation' .. I'm not sure whether Wolf-Ulrich is referring to the same session, but I recall that this was also raised as a question by Larry to the co-chairs of the CWG at a GAC session, I believe on Sun. .. I agree with Milton this needs further scrutiny, as we need to have a common understanding on what we mean by implementation here and how does this align with NTIA's expectation .. Kind regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:52 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “numbers and protocols” proposals. This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: ICANN52 Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: * see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. >> He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability. Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly. * Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
As Narelle pointed out, we ask about this explicitly in section IV bullet point 5 in our RFP: "Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed." So we expect the proposal we receive from the CWG to address this. My understanding is that the bulk of the CWG’s work on RFP section IV will continue once the group has more clarity on the content of the response to RFP section III. Alissa On Feb 16, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Further to the below exchange, here is what Larry said regarding implementation in the IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session on Sun. ..
“AND I ALSO ASK THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSIDER THAT GIVEN THE NEED TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND TEST THESE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO A FINAL TRANSITION, CAN THEY GET IT ALL DONE IN A TIME FRAME CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTATIONS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS?I ASKED TODAY AT A MEETING SOME REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CWG WERE PRESENT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE. AND I HAVE TO SAY NO ONE COULD ANSWER THAT, AND I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE FACTORED INTO THE TIME FRAME FOR TRANSITION. AND IF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR TO IMPLEMENT, WELL, THAT WILL DELAY THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION OF THE IANA FUNCTIONS.”
Kind Regards --Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:18 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
Just recognized that my response to this thread did not address Wolf-Ulrich's point regarding 'implementation' .. I'm not sure whether Wolf-Ulrich is referring to the same session, but I recall that this was also raised as a question by Larry to the co-chairs of the CWG at a GAC session, I believe on Sun. .. I agree with Milton this needs further scrutiny, as we need to have a common understanding on what we mean by implementation here and how does this align with NTIA's expectation ..
Kind regards --Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:52 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “numbers and protocols” proposals.
This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: WUKnoben Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: ICANN52
Dear colleagues,
my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. >>
He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability. Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly. Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Alissa for the reminder and the reference .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 7:29 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: WUKnoben; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 As Narelle pointed out, we ask about this explicitly in section IV bullet point 5 in our RFP: "Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed." So we expect the proposal we receive from the CWG to address this. My understanding is that the bulk of the CWG's work on RFP section IV will continue once the group has more clarity on the content of the response to RFP section III. Alissa On Feb 16, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Further to the below exchange, here is what Larry said regarding implementation in the IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountab ility> on Sun. .. "AND I ALSO ASK THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSIDER THAT GIVEN THE NEED TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND TEST THESE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO A FINAL TRANSITION, CAN THEY GET IT ALL DONE IN A TIME FRAME CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTATIONS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS?I ASKED TODAY AT A MEETING SOME REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CWG WERE PRESENT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE. AND I HAVE TO SAY NO ONE COULD ANSWER THAT, AND I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE FACTORED INTO THE TIME FRAME FOR TRANSITION. AND IF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR TO IMPLEMENT, WELL, THAT WILL DELAY THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION OF THE IANA FUNCTIONS." Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:18 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Just recognized that my response to this thread did not address Wolf-Ulrich's point regarding 'implementation' .. I'm not sure whether Wolf-Ulrich is referring to the same session, but I recall that this was also raised as a question by Larry to the co-chairs of the CWG at a GAC session, I believe on Sun. .. I agree with Milton this needs further scrutiny, as we need to have a common understanding on what we mean by implementation here and how does this align with NTIA's expectation .. Kind regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:52 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the "names and protocols" proposals (see attached). I meant the "numbers and protocols" proposals. This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: ICANN52 Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: * see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful. NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner. With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements. >> He's referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability. Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly. * Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I'd like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg>
DEAR ALL, FACT IS FACT AND REALITY IS REALITY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF SOME DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES WHO TALK ABOUT LENGTHY PROCESS IN CWG. YES THE PROCESS IS LENGTHY BUT THAT IS CRUCIAL AND FUNDAMENTAL. WHY WE SHOULD HURRY ? The issue is complex and the requirements are clear and the matter was reiterated by Larry and confirmed by ICANN Board. let us cross fingers and encourage everybody to be cautious and prudent Regards Kavouss 2015-02-17 13:27 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Thanks Alissa for the reminder and the reference ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] *Sent:* Monday, February 16, 2015 7:29 PM *To:* Manal Ismail *Cc:* WUKnoben; ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
As Narelle pointed out, we ask about this explicitly in section IV bullet point 5 in our RFP:
"Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed."
So we expect the proposal we receive from the CWG to address this. My understanding is that the bulk of the CWG’s work on RFP section IV will continue once the group has more clarity on the content of the response to RFP section III.
Alissa
On Feb 16, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Further to the below exchange, here is what Larry said regarding implementation in the IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountability> on Sun. ..
“AND I ALSO ASK THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSIDER THAT GIVEN THE NEED TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND TEST THESE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO A FINAL TRANSITION, CAN THEY GET IT ALL DONE IN A TIME FRAME CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTATIONS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS?I ASKED TODAY AT A MEETING SOME REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CWG WERE PRESENT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE. AND I HAVE TO SAY NO ONE COULD ANSWER THAT, AND I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE FACTORED INTO THE TIME FRAME FOR TRANSITION. AND IF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR TO IMPLEMENT, WELL, THAT WILL DELAY THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION OF THE IANA FUNCTIONS.”
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Manal Ismail *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:18 AM *To:* WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
Just recognized that my response to this thread did not address Wolf-Ulrich's point regarding 'implementation' ..
I'm not sure whether Wolf-Ulrich is referring to the same session, but I recall that this was also raised as a question by Larry to the co-chairs of the CWG at a GAC session, I believe on Sun. ..
I agree with Milton this needs further scrutiny, as we need to have a common understanding on what we mean by implementation here and how does this align with NTIA's expectation ..
Kind regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben *Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2015 4:52 AM *To:* WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “ *numbers* and protocols” proposals.
This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
*Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM
*To:* internal-cg@icann.org
*Subject:* ICANN52
Dear colleagues,
my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work:
- see *statement from Steve Crocker*, ICANN Board Chair:
<<
*We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful.*
*NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals.*
*We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner.*
*With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements*.
>>
He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability.
Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly.
- *Larry Strickling, NTIA* Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation.
From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the potential consequences.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Manal Ismail -
WUKnoben