All, Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call or shortly thereafter. Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message:

From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3 Date: December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST To: Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: ICG <internal-cg@icann.org>

Hi Paul,

I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I’ve also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...>

On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:

...

Hi all,

I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p...

Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0

In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I’ve added these extra steps to the process.

Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.

...

Also, please note I’ve proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process:

- A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals.

I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we’ve been passing those on to the communities.

The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don’t think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we’re expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it’s appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes — if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it’s not clear what we would do with that information.

My edits in the attached reflect this view — I’ve re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG’s initial reviews of both process and substance.

...

- A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal.

- Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal.

- Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere “transmission” to them.

I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don’t think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I’d rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I’m not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo.

Looking forward to feedback from you and others.

Thanks, Alissa

...

I’ve highlighted these additions in yellow, to distinguish them from other edits.

(and these are open to discussion of course).

Thanks,

Paul.

<proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx>

________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:11 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

...

Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of the proposal finalization process document. Joe did the heavy lifting to incorporate edits based on our discussion in LA. I have also incorporate the appropriate section of Lynn’s text concerning the role of ICANN in the submission process. However, I think the full list of Lynn’s bullets belong in a separate statement that is specifically about expectations concerning ICANN/ICANN Board/NTIA participation during the entire transition plan development process. I think the attached document should remain focused on proposal finalization, and ultimately the content of section 4 should directly reflect the appropriate portion of whatever final content emerges from the thread that Lynn started.

Feedback is of course welcome, and there are a few comments in the document from Joe and myself that are worth discussion. I have attached a clean copy; a redlined version is also available in Dropbox.

Thanks, Alissa

<proposal-finalization-process-v3.docx>_______________________________________________ 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

Hi Kavouss, Which “changes” are you referring to? I’m not sure how to answer your questions without knowing which set of changes you are referencing. Thanks, Alissa On Dec 8, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Alissa,Others What are these changes. We are departing from the original terxt agreed after tens of e-mail exchange I can not agree unless Alissa explain the reasons and orgins of changes. We are gradually sliding into the IETF views: The issue of ICG activities becomes more and more superficial and cosmetic to the extenrt of NO change to the current ICANN practice Regards Kavouss

2014-12-08 16:44 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: All,

Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call or shortly thereafter.

Thanks, Alissa

Begin forwarded message:

...

From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3 Date: December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST To: Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: ICG <internal-cg@icann.org>

Hi Paul,

I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I’ve also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...>

On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:

...

Hi all,

I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p...

Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0

In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I’ve added these extra steps to the process.

Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.

...

Also, please note I’ve proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process:

- A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals.

I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we’ve been passing those on to the communities.

The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don’t think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we’re expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it’s appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes — if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it’s not clear what we would do with that information.

My edits in the attached reflect this view — I’ve re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG’s initial reviews of both process and substance.

...

- A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal.

- Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal.

- Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere “transmission” to them.

I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don’t think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I’d rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I’m not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo.

Looking forward to feedback from you and others.

Thanks, Alissa

...

...

I’ve highlighted these additions in yellow, to distinguish them from other edits.

(and these are open to discussion of course).

Thanks,

Paul.

<proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx>

________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:11 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

...

Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of the proposal finalization process document. Joe did the heavy lifting to incorporate edits based on our discussion in LA. I have also incorporate the appropriate section of Lynn’s text concerning the role of ICANN in the submission process. However, I think the full list of Lynn’s bullets belong in a separate statement that is specifically about expectations concerning ICANN/ICANN Board/NTIA participation during the entire transition plan development process. I think the attached document should remain focused on proposal finalization, and ultimately the content of section 4 should directly reflect the appropriate portion of whatever final content emerges from the thread that Lynn started.

Feedback is of course welcome, and there are a few comments in the document from Joe and myself that are worth discussion. I have attached a clean copy; a redlined version is also available in Dropbox.

Thanks, Alissa

<proposal-finalization-process-v3.docx>_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

I seem to have missed the part where we agreed that the ICANN board needed to send a letter of endorsement or otherwise. Surely as a body independent of the ICG they can do whatever they see fit (and ought to). Why does it need to be referred to here? I can see a point in including a piece where we go through a review process with the ICANN board on the basis that it is, ultimately, the contracted party here. Regards Narelle From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 2:45 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process Importance: High All, Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week's call or shortly thereafter. Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3 Date: December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST To: Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net<mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>> Cc: ICG <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Hi Paul, I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I've also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...> On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net<mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>> wrote: Hi all, I've proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p... Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0 In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I've added these extra steps to the process. Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there. Also, please note I've proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process: - A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals. I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we've been passing those on to the communities. The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don't think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we're expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it's appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes - if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it's not clear what we would do with that information. My edits in the attached reflect this view - I've re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG's initial reviews of both process and substance. - A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal. - Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal. - Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere "transmission" to them. I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don't think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I'd rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I'm not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo. Looking forward to feedback from you and others. Thanks, Alissa

Alissa, with reference to 4e, the ICG has no authority to say what the ICANN Board should or should not do. We can only express a wish or a firm expectation. Therefore, 4d and 4e should be collapsed into one, and reformulated as follows: "The ICG expects the ICANN Board to send the final proposal to the NTIA within 14 days of receipt, without making any changes to the proposal. If the ICANN Board were to have an issue with the proposal, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment. In the latter case, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would not modify the proposal, but would send it with a letter of transmission to be made public." Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> À: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark@accan.org.au> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Décembre 2014 10:51:33 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process Alissa, I saw a document with several track changes accompanied by you explanatory Note . Then I asked myself the followings\ What are these changes ? Who made them? why they were made? WHAT WAS THE REASONS TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES? if I misunderstood the issue, pls correct me Regards Kavouss 2014-12-09 3:05 GMT+01:00 Narelle Clark < narelle.clark@accan.org.au > : I seem to have missed the part where we agreed that the ICANN board needed to send a letter of endorsement or otherwise. Surely as a body independent of the ICG they can do whatever they see fit (and ought to). Why does it need to be referred to here? I can see a point in including a piece where we go through a review process with the ICANN board on the basis that it is, ultimately, the contracted party here. Regards Narelle From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 2:45 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process Importance: High All, Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call or shortly thereafter. Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper < alissa@cooperw.in > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3 Date: December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST To: Paul Wilson < pwilson@apnic.net > Cc: ICG < internal-cg@icann.org > Hi Paul, I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I’ve also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. < https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro... > On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson < pwilson@apnic.net > wrote: Hi all, I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p... Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0 In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I’ve added these extra steps to the process. Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there. Also, please note I’ve proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process: - A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals. I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum < http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ > and we’ve been passing those on to the communities. The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don’t think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we’re expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it’s appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes — if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it’s not clear what we would do with that information. My edits in the attached reflect this view — I’ve re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG’s initial reviews of both process and substance. - A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal. - Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal. - Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere “transmission” to them. I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don’t think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I’d rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I’m not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo. Looking forward to feedback from you and others. 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

I agree with the intent of Jean-Jacques’ proposed modification and with Arasteh’s modification of it. The language however is a bit redundant at the end, and we need to work more directly from the clear, step by step language that Alissa has already put into the document. So how about this: a. The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site. b. The ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board. c. The ICANN Board will send the final proposal to NTIA without making any changes within 14 days of receiving the proposal from the ICG. Any accompanying letter will be posted publicly. d. If the ICANN Board has an issue with the proposal, the ICG understands that the ICANN Board will have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:58 AM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process Dear Alisa I agree with Jean Jacques but suggesting to replace the word "expects "to "understands "due to the fact that our views is more than an expectation Regards Kavouss 2014-12-09 12:21 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net<mailto:jjs@dyalog.net>>: Alissa, with reference to 4e, the ICG has no authority to say what the ICANN Board should or should not do. We can only express a wish or a firm expectation. Therefore, 4d and 4e should be collapsed into one, and reformulated as follows: "The ICG expects the ICANN Board to send the final proposal to the NTIA within 14 days of receipt, without making any changes to the proposal. If the ICANN Board were to have an issue with the proposal, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment. In the latter case, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would not modify the proposal, but would send it with a letter of transmission to be made public." Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> À: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark@accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au>> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Décembre 2014 10:51:33 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process Alissa, I saw a document with several track changes accompanied by you explanatory Note . Then I asked myself the followings\ What are these changes ? Who made them? why they were made? WHAT WAS THE REASONS TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES? if I misunderstood the issue, pls correct me Regards Kavouss 2014-12-09 3:05 GMT+01:00 Narelle Clark < narelle.clark@accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au> > : I seem to have missed the part where we agreed that the ICANN board needed to send a letter of endorsement or otherwise. Surely as a body independent of the ICG they can do whatever they see fit (and ought to). Why does it need to be referred to here? I can see a point in including a piece where we go through a review process with the ICANN board on the basis that it is, ultimately, the contracted party here. Regards Narelle 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 Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 2:45 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process Importance: High All, Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call or shortly thereafter. Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper < alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3 Date: December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST To: Paul Wilson < pwilson@apnic.net<mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> > Cc: ICG < internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> > Hi Paul, I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I’ve also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. < https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro... > On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson < pwilson@apnic.net<mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> > wrote: Hi all, I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p... Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0 In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I’ve added these extra steps to the process. Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there. Also, please note I’ve proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process: - A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals. I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum < http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ > and we’ve been passing those on to the communities. The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don’t think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we’re expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it’s appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes — if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it’s not clear what we would do with that information. My edits in the attached reflect this view — I’ve re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG’s initial reviews of both process and substance. - A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal. - Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal. - Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere “transmission” to them. I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don’t think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I’d rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I’m not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo. Looking forward to feedback from you and others. 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

Colleagues as I may not be able to make the call, I wanted to provide some high level observations and minor proposed edits (attached in redline in the document): ·(1a 2^nd bullet)Whether input/comments the ICG received directly that were shared with the operational community were considered/addressed. ·(Para 2) According to the ICG Charter, its role is not to draft a single transition proposal, but rather to assemble a proposal from component proposals.These components are not expected to be uniform [j1] <#_msocom_1>as they relate to the specific IANA functions which are of interest to each operational community. ·(2a) Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single unified proposal? Do they suggest any arrangements that are not compatible with each other? Is the handling of all possibly conflicting overlaps[j2] <#_msocom_2>between the functions resolved in a workable manner? ·(2b) comment from previous round: Do we add a cross reference to overall accountability work here: Proposal Do any of the changes proposed in the relevant stream of ICANN accountability work negatively impact any of the operations com unity accountability functions outlined in the unified proposal? ·(2c) I think the RFP called for a description of appropriate testing, therefore it should be part of the submission.How its described is not the issue, that its described and sufficient is. ·General Question.Do we have a general comment process for a proposal that is going through step 1, or just a process who don't think their comments were taken on board. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [j1] <#_msoanchor_1>Remove "essentially disjoint" as may be read by some as incoherent within their own logic as opposed to in comparison to others. [j2] <#_msoanchor_2>An overlap may not be necessarily conflicting and may not need to be resolved. On 12/8/2014 10:44 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

All,

Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week's call or shortly thereafter.

Thanks, Alissa

Begin forwarded message:

...

*From: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> *Subject: **Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3* *Date: *December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST *To: *Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>> *Cc: *ICG <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>>

Hi Paul,

I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I've also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...>

On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>> wrote:

...

Hi all,

I've proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p...

Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0

In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I've added these extra steps to the process.

Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.

...

Also, please note I've proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process:

- A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals.

I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we've been passing those on to the communities.

The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don't think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we're expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it's appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes --- if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it's not clear what we would do with that information.

My edits in the attached reflect this view --- I've re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG's initial reviews of both process and substance.

...

- A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal.

- Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal.

- Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere "transmission" to them.

I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don't think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I'd rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I'm not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo.

Looking forward to feedback from you and others.

Thanks, Alissa

=

...

...

I've highlighted these additions in yellow, to distinguish them from other edits.

(and these are open to discussion of course).

Thanks,

Paul.

<proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx>

________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net <mailto:dg@apnic.net>> http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/> +61 7 3858 3100

On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:11 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:

...

Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of the proposal finalization process document. Joe did the heavy lifting to incorporate edits based on our discussion in LA. I have also incorporate the appropriate section of Lynn's text concerning the role of ICANN in the submission process. However, I think the full list of Lynn's bullets belong in a separate statement that is specifically about expectations concerning ICANN/ICANN Board/NTIA participation during the entire transition plan development process. I think the attached document should remain focused on proposal finalization, and ultimately the content of section 4 should directly reflect the appropriate portion of whatever final content emerges from the thread that Lynn started.

Feedback is of course welcome, and there are a few comments in the document from Joe and myself that are worth discussion. I have attached a clean copy; a redlined version is also available in Dropbox.

Thanks, Alissa

<proposal-finalization-process-v3.docx>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

=

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear Alissa, I could also agree with the language used by Milton Kavouss 2014-12-09 23:32 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:

Hi Joe,

Couple of questions below.

On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:41 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

Colleagues as I may not be able to make the call, I wanted to provide some high level observations and minor proposed edits (attached in redline in the document):

· (1a 2nd bullet)Whether input/comments the ICG received directly that were shared with the operational community were considered/addressed.

· (Para 2) According to the ICG Charter, its role is not to draft a single transition proposal, but rather to assemble a proposal from component proposals. These components are notexpected to be uniform [j1] as they relate to the specific IANA functions which are of interest to each operational community.

· (2a) Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single unified proposal? Do they suggest any arrangements that are not compatible with each other? Is the handling of all possibly conflicting overlaps[j2] between the functions resolved in a workable manner?

· (2b) comment from previous round: Do we add a cross reference to overall accountability work here: Proposal Do any of the changes proposed in the relevant stream of ICANN accountability work negatively impact any of the operations com unity accountability functions outlined in the unified proposal?

Milton had asked you to clarify what you mean by “operations community accountability functions.” I am also having trouble understanding what you mean with your suggestion here, or what is not already covered by the fact that we are already asking "Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?"

· (2c) I think the RFP called for a description of appropriate testing, therefore it should be part of the submission. How its described is not the issue, that its described and sufficient is.

· General Question. Do we have a general comment process for a proposal that is going through step 1, or just a process who don’t think their comments were taken on board.

What do you mean by a “general comment process”?

Thanks, Alissa

------------------------------ [j1]Remove “essentially disjoint” as may be read by some as incoherent within their own logic as opposed to in comparison to others. [j2]An overlap may not be necessarily conflicting and may not need to be resolved.

On 12/8/2014 10:44 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

All,

Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call or shortly thereafter.

Thanks, Alissa

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> *Subject: **Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3* *Date: *December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST *To: *Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> *Cc: *ICG <internal-cg@icann.org>

Hi Paul,

I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I’ve also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. < https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...

...

On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:

Hi all,

I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p...

Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0

In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I’ve added these extra steps to the process.

Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.

Also, please note I’ve proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process:

- A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals.

I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we’ve been passing those on to the communities.

The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don’t think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we’re expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it’s appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes — if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it’s not clear what we would do with that information.

My edits in the attached reflect this view — I’ve re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG’s initial reviews of both process and substance.

- A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal.

- Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal.

- Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere “transmission” to them.

I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don’t think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I’d rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I’m not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo.

Looking forward to feedback from you and others.

Thanks, Alissa

=

I’ve highlighted these additions in yellow, to distinguish them from other edits.

(and these are open to discussion of course).

Thanks,

Paul.

<proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx>

________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:11 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of the proposal finalization process document. Joe did the heavy lifting to incorporate edits based on our discussion in LA. I have also incorporate the appropriate section of Lynn’s text concerning the role of ICANN in the submission process. However, I think the full list of Lynn’s bullets belong in a separate statement that is specifically about expectations concerning ICANN/ICANN Board/NTIA participation during the entire transition plan development process. I think the attached document should remain focused on proposal finalization, and ultimately the content of section 4 should directly reflect the appropriate portion of whatever final content emerges from the thread that Lynn started.

Feedback is of course welcome, and there are a few comments in the document from Joe and myself that are worth discussion. I have attached a clean copy; a redlined version is also available in Dropbox.

Thanks, Alissa

<proposal-finalization-process-v3.docx>_______________________________________________ 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

=

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

<proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw-alc-jha.docx> _______________________________________________ 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

On Dec 9, 2014, at 2:53 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

Alissa, Milton:

Accountability. The phrasing may not be correct to avoid confusion, it was whether we needed to have a cross reference on whether any developments of the ICANN accountability process could/had impact/ed the accountability processes of the member communities. This is a foward looking factor that may never arise, but there could be sshadow cast by developments in the ICANN accountability work. More of a place holder than anything.

Ok. I still think the first question in 2b covers this, but perhaps it will become more clear if we can discuss it on the call. I think it’s important that we not build in a way for us to second-guess the substance of the proposals we receive from any of the operational communities. For example, if between the time we receive the names community proposal and the time we’re wrapping up step 2, something happens in the ICANN accountability work that undermines the names proposal, I want the names community to be the judge of that, not us.

The General comment. Do we accept any comments from stakeholders on individual community proposals after they are released by the community and while we are in the process of reviewing them in step 1.

Of course people can submit comments to us at any time, but I don’t think we should specifically seek comments in the step 1 phase, because commenters would be commenting on the same substance that they had an opportunity to comment on in the operational communities themselves. We have two public comment periods planned for after changes may have been made depending on our assessments. Alissa

Thanks-

Joe

On 12/9/2014 5:32 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

...

Hi Joe,

Couple of questions below.

On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:41 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

...

Colleagues as I may not be able to make the call, I wanted to provide some high level observations and minor proposed edits (attached in redline in the document):

· (1a 2nd bullet)Whether input/comments the ICG received directly that were shared with the operational community were considered/addressed.

· (Para 2) According to the ICG Charter, its role is not to draft a single transition proposal, but rather to assemble a proposal from component proposals. These components are notexpected to be uniform [j1] as they relate to the specific IANA functions which are of interest to each operational community.

· (2a) Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single unified proposal? Do they suggest any arrangements that are not compatible with each other? Is the handling of all possibly conflicting overlaps[j2] between the functions resolved in a workable manner?

· (2b) comment from previous round: Do we add a cross reference to overall accountability work here: Proposal Do any of the changes proposed in the relevant stream of ICANN accountability work negatively impact any of the operations com unity accountability functions outlined in the unified proposal?

Milton had asked you to clarify what you mean by “operations community accountability functions.” I am also having trouble understanding what you mean with your suggestion here, or what is not already covered by the fact that we are already asking "Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?"

...

· (2c) I think the RFP called for a description of appropriate testing, therefore it should be part of the submission. How its described is not the issue, that its described and sufficient is.

· General Question. Do we have a general comment process for a proposal that is going through step 1, or just a process who don’t think their comments were taken on board.

What do you mean by a “general comment process”?

Thanks, Alissa

...

[j1]Remove “essentially disjoint” as may be read by some as incoherent within their own logic as opposed to in comparison to others. [j2]An overlap may not be necessarily conflicting and may not need to be resolved.

On 12/8/2014 10:44 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

...

All,

Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call or shortly thereafter.

Thanks, Alissa

Begin forwarded message:

...

From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3 Date: December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST To: Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: ICG <internal-cg@icann.org>

Hi Paul,

I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I’ve also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...>

On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:

...

Hi all,

I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p...

Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0

In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I’ve added these extra steps to the process.

Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.

...

Also, please note I’ve proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process:

- A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals.

I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we’ve been passing those on to the communities.

The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don’t think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we’re expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it’s appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes — if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it’s not clear what we would do with that information.

My edits in the attached reflect this view — I’ve re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG’s initial reviews of both process and substance.

...

- A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal.

- Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal.

- Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere “transmission” to them.

I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don’t think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I’d rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I’m not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo.

Looking forward to feedback from you and others.

Thanks, Alissa

=

...

...

I’ve highlighted these additions in yellow, to distinguish them from other edits.

(and these are open to discussion of course).

Thanks,

Paul.

<proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx>

________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100

On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:11 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of the proposal finalization process document. Joe did the heavy lifting to incorporate edits based on our discussion in LA. I have also incorporate the appropriate section of Lynn’s text concerning the role of ICANN in the submission process. However, I think the full list of Lynn’s bullets belong in a separate statement that is specifically about expectations concerning ICANN/ICANN Board/NTIA participation during the entire transition plan development process. I think the attached document should remain focused on proposal finalization, and ultimately the content of section 4 should directly reflect the appropriate portion of whatever final content emerges from the thread that Lynn started. > > Feedback is of course welcome, and there are a few comments in the document from Joe and myself that are worth discussion. I have attached a clean copy; a redlined version is also available in Dropbox. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > <proposal-finalization-process-v3.docx>_______________________________________________ > 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

=

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

<proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw-alc-jha.docx>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

OECD meeting is running long so I won't be able to join the call. On the accountability issue, I'm fine with the concept of leaving it to the individual communities to be the one who raise the issue to us. On 12/10/2014 5:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote:

I’ve inserted some comments to be discussed.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:19 AM *To:* joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> *Cc:* ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process On Dec 9, 2014, at 2:53 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote:

...

Alissa, Milton:

Accountability. The phrasing may not be correct to avoid confusion, it was whether we needed to have a cross reference on whether any developments of the ICANN accountability process could/had impact/ed the accountability processes of the member communities. This is a foward looking factor that may never arise, but there could be sshadow cast by developments in the ICANN accountability work. More of a place holder than anything. Ok. I still think the first question in 2b covers this, but perhaps it will become more clear if we can discuss it on the call. I think it’s important that we not build in a way for us to second-guess the substance of the proposals we receive from any of the operational communities. For example, if between the time we receive the names community proposal and the time we’re wrapping up step 2, something happens in the ICANN accountability work that undermines the names proposal, I want the names community to be the judge of that, not us.

...

The General comment. Do we accept any comments from stakeholders on individual community proposals after they are released by the community and while we are in the process of reviewing them in step 1.

Of course people can submit comments to us at any time, but I don’t think we should specifically seek comments in the step 1 phase, because commenters would be commenting on the same substance that they had an opportunity to comment on in the operational communities themselves. We have two public comment periods planned for after changes may have been made depending on our assessments. Alissa

...

Thanks-

Joe

On 12/9/2014 5:32 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

...

Hi Joe, Couple of questions below. On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:41 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote:

...

Colleagues as I may not be able to make the call, I wanted to provide some high level observations and minor proposed edits (attached in redline in the document):

·(1a 2^nd bullet)Whether input/comments the ICG received directlythatwere shared with the operational communitywereconsidered/addressed.

·(Para 2) According to the ICG Charter, its role is not to draft a single transition proposal, but rather to assemble a proposal from component proposals.These components arenotexpected to beuniform[j1] <x-msg://108/#_msocom_1>as they relate to the specific IANA functions which are of interest to each operational community.

·(2a) Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single unified proposal? Do they suggest any arrangements that are not compatible with each other? Is the handling of allpossibly conflicting overlaps[j2] <x-msg://108/#_msocom_2>between the functions resolved in a workable manner?

·(2b) comment from previous round:Do we add a cross reference to overall accountability work here: Proposal Do any of the changes proposed in the relevant stream of ICANN accountability work negatively impact any of the operations com unity accountability functions outlined in the unified proposal? Milton had asked you to clarify what you mean by “operations community accountability functions.” I am also having trouble understanding what you mean with your suggestion here, or what is not already covered by the fact that we are already asking "Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?"

...

·(2c) I think the RFP called for a description of appropriate testing, therefore it should be part of the submission.How its described is not the issue, that its described and sufficient is.

·General Question.Do we have a general comment process for a proposal that is going through step 1, or just a process who don’t think their comments were taken on board.

What do you mean by a “general comment process”? Thanks, Alissa

...

------------------------------------------------------------------------ [j1] <x-msg://108/#_msoanchor_1>Remove “essentially disjoint” as may be read by some as incoherent within their own logic as opposed to in comparison to others. [j2] <x-msg://108/#_msoanchor_2>An overlap may not be necessarily conflicting and may not need to be resolved. On 12/8/2014 10:44 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

...

All, Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call or shortly thereafter. Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message:

...

*From:*Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> *Subject:**Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3* *Date:*December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST *To:*Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>> *Cc:*ICG <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Hi Paul, I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I’ve also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...> On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>> wrote:

> Hi all, > > I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and > also in dropbox here: > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-p... > > > Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, > as shown in the Excel file here: > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0 > > In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal > in March, and a final proposal in June; so I’ve added these > extra steps to the process. Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.

> > > Also, please note I’ve proposed a few substantial additional > steps in this process: > > - A public call for comments on the community proposal > development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow > us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of > support for the processes which produced community proposals. I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we’ve been passing those on to the communities. The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don’t think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we’re expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it’s appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes — if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it’s not clear what we would do with that information. My edits in the attached reflect this view — I’ve re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG’s initial reviews of both process and substance.

> > - A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and > other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal. > > - Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 > into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to > present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in > June) ICG to present the final transition proposal. > > - Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during > a meeting with them; rather than mere “transmission” to them. I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don’t think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I’d rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I’m not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo. Looking forward to feedback from you and others. Thanks, Alissa =

...

> > I’ve highlighted these additions in yellow, to distinguish them > from other edits. > > (and these are open to discussion of course). > > Thanks, > > Paul. > > <proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx> > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > <dg@apnic.net <mailto:dg@apnic.net>> > http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/>+61 7 3858 3100 > > > > On 5 Nov 2014, at 4:11 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in > <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote: > >> Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of the proposal >> finalization process document. Joe did the heavy lifting to >> incorporate edits based on our discussion in LA. I have also >> incorporate the appropriate section of Lynn’s text concerning >> the role of ICANN in the submission process. However, I think >> the full list of Lynn’s bullets belong in a separate statement >> that is specifically about expectations concerning ICANN/ICANN >> Board/NTIA participation during the entire transition plan >> development process. I think the attached document should >> remain focused on proposal finalization, and ultimately the >> content of section 4 should directly reflect the appropriate >> portion of whatever final content emerges from the thread that >> Lynn started. >> >> Feedback is of course welcome, and there are a few comments in >> the document from Joe and myself that are worth discussion. I >> have attached a clean copy; a redlined version is also >> available in Dropbox. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> <proposal-finalization-process-v3.docx>_______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

=

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

<proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw-alc-jha.docx>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Russ: It's listed as a description requirement under the 4th bullet of IV Transition Implications. It references testing of workability. I have no problem using that language, but I do have a problem ignoring this requirement. It would seem that it benefits operational communities to make such a case in trying to assure acceptance. NTIA has also discussed the importance of such elements, though after they finalized the formal requirements. (http://netchoice.org/ntia-secretary-strickling-supporting-use-cases-stress-t...) Best- Joe On 12/9/2014 4:02 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

I reviewed the draft "IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process" document. Nice job. I agree with the vast majority of the document.

MAJOR CONCERN:

I think we should remove Question C from step 2. The ICG proposal did not ask the operational communities to report on stress testing or scenario analysis. I realize that some communities are doing this based on concerns raised within their community, but we did not ask everyone to do it, so we cannot fail to move the proposal forward at this point if it has not been done.

EDITORIAL COMMENTS:

There is a typo in step 4. The public comment will be similar to that in step 3 (not step 2). Similarly, the subsequent step is number 5 (not 4)

The "proposal submission" step should be numbered 5 (not 6).

Russ

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Hi, Lynn Brenden Kuerbis and I were interviewed by the GAO staff in our capacity as principals in the Internet Governance Project, so we probably have a more accurate idea what they are up to than the article you link to. We also were asked for names of others that would be good to talk to and provided some names of informed people, including some on the ICG. The GAO is under Congressional direction and thus provides an easy and relatively benign way for Congress to involve itself in the transition. I would consider their report as background fact-finding and not an "audit." They will release their report and that will provide an independent perspective (independent of the executive branch) on what is happening. The emphasis is on the risks of the transition. I would not advise the ICG to formally respond to the questions that are being publicized without being asked to; I think it looks defensive and pre-emptive, especially when we don't actually have a proposal yet. The best thing we can do is to have a good, airtight proposal with broad consensus reasonably on schedule. Once we have that, the PR battle will begin, and of course with or without the GAO we can expect various interest groups to take pot shots at whatever is proposed. That is when the need for "PR" comes in. In this regard the GAO report may help, if it is reasonably objective it can allay some of the more lurid fears. Only time can tell how objective or biased their report will be, but certainly they are hearing from people who support as well as fear the transition.

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:04 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] US Government Accountability Office (GAO) interviews

From: http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-iana-oversight-transition- watch-more-voices-against-a-rushed-process-not-yet-independence- icann/

Evidently, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked to interview key people in Washington DC over the IANA transition - and "the results are likely to form the basis for a number of hearings in the new year. This is understood to be an audit process, an act that has been missing in the transition discussions. The Audit is likey to result in very serious questions that could likely delay the ICANN independence."

What about the ICG preparing a written response to some of these questions as it would be a good opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings about the IANA functions, and at the same time serve as a more useful reference than this likely very biased "audit".

On a related point, I think the ICG needs some budget and PR-like resources in order to allow us to get some instructive communications out (being proactive) or at a minimum to respond to inaccurate reports, and of course not just from the US, so the requirement will be pretty heavy.

I think this is critical for the success of the transition, and believe we need to do more to "get out there". In the end, hopefully not only will the IANA transition effort be well served, but so will the broader IG model and so many of the other principles we all believe so strongly in - multi-stakeholder, bottom-up, etc.

Thoughts?

Lynn

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

This sounds very reasonable, however I would counsel that we at least have a collective 'think' about what sorts of responses might be appropriate, were we to be approached. Simply on the basis that the questions are sound. I am not suggesting we have lengthy discussions about it, nor try to form consensus views, merely that we consider the questions ourselves. We have enough on our plate already, but these questions should assist in forming our process for analysis. I am comfortable we have the issues covered in our RFP. Narelle

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2014 3:18 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] US Government Accountability Office (GAO) interviews

I agree with Milton and just reviewing the questions a number would not be appropriate for us tO address...

Sent from my iPad

...

On Dec 2, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Hi, Lynn Brenden Kuerbis and I were interviewed by the GAO staff in our capacity as principals in the oInternet Governance Project, so we probably have a more accurate idea what they are up to than the article you link to. We also were asked for names of others that would be good to talk to and provided some names of informed people, including some on the ICG.

The GAO is under Congressional direction and thus provides an easy and relatively benign way for Congress to involve itself in the transition. I would consider their report as background fact-finding and not an "audit." They will release their report and that will provide an independent perspective (independent of the executive branch) on what is happening. The emphasis is on the risks of the transition.

I would not advise the ICG to formally respond to the questions that are being publicized without being asked to; I think it looks defensive and pre-emptive, especially when we don't actually have a proposal yet. The best thing we can do is to have a good, airtight proposal with broad consensus reasonably on schedule. Once we have that, the PR battle will begin, and of course with or without the GAO we can expect various interest groups to take pot shots at whatever is proposed. That is when the need for "PR" comes in.

In this regard the GAO report may help, if it is reasonably objective it can allay some of the more lurid fears. Only time can tell how objective or biased their report will be, but certainly they are hearing from people who support as well as fear the transition.

...

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:04 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] US Government Accountability Office (GAO) interviews

From: http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-iana-oversight-transition- watch-more-voices-against-a-rushed-process-not-yet-independence- icann/

Evidently, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked to interview key people in Washington DC over the IANA transition - and "the results are likely to form the basis for a number of hearings in the new year. This is understood to be an audit process, an act that has been missing in the transition discussions. The Audit is likey to result in very serious questions that could likely delay the ICANN independence."

What about the ICG preparing a written response to some of these questions as it would be a good opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings about the IANA functions, and at the same time serve as a more useful reference than this likely very biased "audit".

On a related point, I think the ICG needs some budget and PR-like resources in order to allow us to get some instructive communications out (being proactive) or at a minimum to respond to inaccurate reports, and of course not just from the US, so the requirement will be pretty heavy.

I think this is critical for the success of the transition, and believe we need to do more to "get out there". In the end, hopefully not only will the IANA transition effort be well served, but so will the broader IG model and so many of the other principles we all believe so strongly in - multi-stakeholder, bottom-up, etc.

Thoughts?

Lynn

_______________________________________________ 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

---

Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

HI Milton, thanks for the additional background and advice. Very helpful. Lynn On Dec 2, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Hi, Lynn Brenden Kuerbis and I were interviewed by the GAO staff in our capacity as principals in the Internet Governance Project, so we probably have a more accurate idea what they are up to than the article you link to. We also were asked for names of others that would be good to talk to and provided some names of informed people, including some on the ICG.

The GAO is under Congressional direction and thus provides an easy and relatively benign way for Congress to involve itself in the transition. I would consider their report as background fact-finding and not an "audit." They will release their report and that will provide an independent perspective (independent of the executive branch) on what is happening. The emphasis is on the risks of the transition.

I would not advise the ICG to formally respond to the questions that are being publicized without being asked to; I think it looks defensive and pre-emptive, especially when we don't actually have a proposal yet. The best thing we can do is to have a good, airtight proposal with broad consensus reasonably on schedule. Once we have that, the PR battle will begin, and of course with or without the GAO we can expect various interest groups to take pot shots at whatever is proposed. That is when the need for "PR" comes in.

In this regard the GAO report may help, if it is reasonably objective it can allay some of the more lurid fears. Only time can tell how objective or biased their report will be, but certainly they are hearing from people who support as well as fear the transition.

...

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:04 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] US Government Accountability Office (GAO) interviews

From: http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-iana-oversight-transition- watch-more-voices-against-a-rushed-process-not-yet-independence- icann/

Evidently, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked to interview key people in Washington DC over the IANA transition - and "the results are likely to form the basis for a number of hearings in the new year. This is understood to be an audit process, an act that has been missing in the transition discussions. The Audit is likey to result in very serious questions that could likely delay the ICANN independence."

What about the ICG preparing a written response to some of these questions as it would be a good opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings about the IANA functions, and at the same time serve as a more useful reference than this likely very biased "audit".

On a related point, I think the ICG needs some budget and PR-like resources in order to allow us to get some instructive communications out (being proactive) or at a minimum to respond to inaccurate reports, and of course not just from the US, so the requirement will be pretty heavy.

I think this is critical for the success of the transition, and believe we need to do more to "get out there". In the end, hopefully not only will the IANA transition effort be well served, but so will the broader IG model and so many of the other principles we all believe so strongly in - multi-stakeholder, bottom-up, etc.

Thoughts?

Lynn

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg