RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline
Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and make sure we are all on the same page. In our RFP <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN. RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals that are missing the oversight and accountability component. We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process — not the last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal for submission to NTIA <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>. As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG. Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects other parties to make. I think it’s perfectly fine — and expected — for the proposals to have this feature when they come to us. We didn’t ask the communities to finish the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won’t have to do that, but we’ve built our process to accommodate it. Alissa
Thanks Alissa, I think this is spot on. Best, Keith Drazek From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:05 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and make sure we are all on the same page. In our RFP <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN. RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals that are missing the oversight and accountability component. We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process - not the last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal for submission to NTIA <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>. As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG. Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects other parties to make. I think it's perfectly fine - and expected - for the proposals to have this feature when they come to us. We didn't ask the communities to finish the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won't have to do that, but we've built our process to accommodate it. Alissa
Agreed. Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Alissa,
I think this is spot on.
Best, Keith Drazek
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:05 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline
Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and make sure we are all on the same page.
In our RFP <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN.
RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals that are missing the oversight and accountability component.
We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process — not the last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal for submission to NTIA <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>. As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG.
Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects other parties to make.
I think it’s perfectly fine — and expected — for the proposals to have this feature when they come to us. We didn’t ask the communities to finish the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won’t have to do that, but we’ve built our process to accommodate it.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa Thankj you very much for that explanation However, I draw your attention to the part of the CCWG Charter as ststed below: Quote “In the discussions around the accountability process, the CCWG-Accountabili ty will proceed with two Work Streams: · *Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition*; Whereas · *Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition* *In that sense , ICG is expected to receive the results of activities of Work Stream 1 .No doubt the activities of that Work Stream should include but not limited to cover the outcome of the CWG accountability part on naming . * *Moreover, Work Stream 1 shall also receive the inputs from **for **CRISP( for numbers ) **; and from **IANAPLAN.( foir protocol and parameters ) .* *In other words all accountabilities relating to Naming, Numbers , and proptocol including parapametrs ,irrespective their transmission to ICG as You have mentioned , must be seen together in a pachkage by CCWG under Work Stream 1. .Without that information from CCWG the accountability actions referred to in WS1 IANA TRANSITION WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE.* *This is an issue that must be discussed in CCWG thoroughly.* *Moreover, I do not understand the term “ CONDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY” the accountability is not coherenet and understandable with such qualification.* *In addition the results of CWG ,efven if it come to ICG at the end of Januar , it must have the consensus of community . I have doubt that community would have sufficient time to comment on the output of CWG.* *I therefroe see a major difficulty here that such a proposal may come from CWG at the end of Jan. 2015 without being sufficiently discussed by the community and not reached consensus.* *We are rushing to do something which may have serious inconsistencies . * *Regards* *Kavouss * 2015-01-15 7:49 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Agreed.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Alissa,
I think this is spot on.
Best,
Keith Drazek
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:05 PM *To:* ICG *Subject:* [Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline
Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and make sure we are all on the same page.
In our RFP < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN.
RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals that are missing the oversight and accountability component.
We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process — not the last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal for submission to NTIA < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>. As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG.
Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects other parties to make.
I think it’s perfectly fine — and expected — for the proposals to have this feature when they come to us. We didn’t ask the communities to finish the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won’t have to do that, but we’ve built our process to accommodate it.
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
Alissa: I think your explanation is correct (and also in line with we did at the IETF). Jari
Alissa, great summary of status and expectations. Fully support this. Lynn On Jan 14, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and make sure we are all on the same page.
In our RFP <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN.
RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals that are missing the oversight and accountability component.
We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process — not the last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal for submission to NTIA <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>. As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG.
Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects other parties to make.
I think it’s perfectly fine — and expected — for the proposals to have this feature when they come to us. We didn’t ask the communities to finish the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won’t have to do that, but we’ve built our process to accommodate it.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Drazek, Keith -
Jari Arkko -
Joseph Alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour