I tried to accommodate all of the comments from the discussion that took place yesterday. Here is the updated document. Please review and comment. Russ

Here's one additional data point for consideration and incorporation. Below is the language from the current NTIA-ICANN agreement regarding renewal terms. It requires NTIA to provide non-binding notice of intent to extend 30 days prior to expiration (August 30) and a formal notice of intent to extend 15 days prior to expiration (September 15). If neither of those occur, the contract will expire and the transition / NTIA's disengagement will take place. Therefore, NTIA will need to have sufficient time to evaluate and assess well before the end of August. I.59 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000) (a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 15 calendar days before the expiration of the contract; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 calendar days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension. (b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause. (c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed seven years. It is on page 58 at this link: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and... Keith Keith Drazek Vice President Public Policy & Government Relations Verisign, Inc. +1-571-377-9182 kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:20 AM To: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline

I tried to accommodate all of the comments from the discussion that took place yesterday. Here is the updated document. Please review and comment.

Here is a graphic that shows the timeline. I hope this helps people see the things that are being done in parallel. Russ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Agreed, thanks Russ. Keith From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:40 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline Keith: I think the deliver of a draft in March 2015 and the proposal in June 2015 does give NTIA plenty of time to tackle these dates. Russ On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: Here's one additional data point for consideration and incorporation. Below is the language from the current NTIA-ICANN agreement regarding renewal terms. It requires NTIA to provide non-binding notice of intent to extend 30 days prior to expiration (August 30) and a formal notice of intent to extend 15 days prior to expiration (September 15). If neither of those occur, the contract will expire and the transition / NTIA's disengagement will take place. Therefore, NTIA will need to have sufficient time to evaluate and assess well before the end of August. I.59 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000) (a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 15 calendar days before the expiration of the contract; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 calendar days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension. (b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause. (c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed seven years. It is on page 58 at this link: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and... Keith Keith Drazek Vice President Public Policy & Government Relations Verisign, Inc. +1-571-377-9182 kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:20 AM To: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline

I tried to accommodate all of the comments from the discussion that took place yesterday. Here is the updated document. Please review and comment.

Here is a graphic that shows the timeline. I hope this helps people see the things that are being done in parallel. Russ _______________________________________________ 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

One item that was noted as ³missing² from this proposed timeline is a window to address any issues uncovered during testing that would necessitate a revision to the proposal(s), and perhaps even a re-opening of public comments on those changes. Thanks-- J. On 7/21/14, 11:26 , "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Very nice infographic! I have saved it in my IANA-transition folder under the filename: "timeline-optimistic." --MM

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:20 AM To: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline

...

I tried to accommodate all of the comments from the discussion that took place yesterday. Here is the updated document. Please review and comment.

Here is a graphic that shows the timeline. I hope this helps people see the things that are being done in parallel.

Russ

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

Great to see the graphic timeline. It looks fine to me. We can use this timeline to process and see what it happens. Kuo Wu Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> 於 2014/7/21 22:20 寫道：

...

I tried to accommodate all of the comments from the discussion that took place yesterday. Here is the updated document. Please review and comment.

Here is a graphic that shows the timeline. I hope this helps people see the things that are being done in parallel.

Russ

<NTIA transition timeline.pdf>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Colleagues: i don't recall the part of the discussion yesterday where we came to the conclusion that the names communities would be able to come up with a proposal by early February. It seems unrealistic. We will be lucky to get something from them by mid-March. While we are giving the DNS part too little time, we seem to be giving the NTIA too much time. The NTIA has the comparatively simple task of determining whether a complete proposal a) has consensus, b) meets its criteria. I don't see how that takes 3 months. Furthermore, if the NTIA needs more time beyond the Sept deadline it can extend its contract for a month, two or three. No hard constraint there. I of course understand the need to set aggressive goals and also understand that work tends to expand to fill out allotted time, so I ask for comment by the others from the GNSO - knowing what you know about how the Council and other WGs in GNSO or CCWGs work, do you think it is realistic to ask for a complete consensus proposal from the GNSO, CCNSO and GAC by early February? ________________________________________ From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:56 AM To: Russ Housley Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline Russ, thanks. Here’s a version with suggested changes I tried to describe. Paul.

In the end the timeline must be realistic. But since at least the g-names community is still "under construction" here - the CCWG charter is supposed to be ready after 4 weeks from now! - we should start with the "conditioned" timeline (achieve the goal of handing the proposal over to NTIA a reasonible time before 30 Sep 2015) and make the conditions transparent. I agree with Milton that due to the GNSO process early Feb 2015 will be highly challenging but will refer immediately to the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and copy Jonathan Robinson in as CCWG co-chair in order to get more realistic views until end of July. +1 to shrinking NTIA timeline. Decision: Is the aggressive schedule being met? – by 2 Feb 2015. That should be a nice weekend! :-) Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 8:47 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline We need realistic timelines, not optimistic. Count backwards regarding time needed inside ICANN organizations to reach consensus. I don't know gnso process. I know SSAC process. I agree we shod shrink NTIA time although we should recognize their time (whatever that is, we shod ask them). Patrik

On 20 jul 2014, at 02:03, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Colleagues: i don't recall the part of the discussion yesterday where we came to the conclusion that the names communities would be able to come up with a proposal by early February. It seems unrealistic. We will be lucky to get something from them by mid-March.

While we are giving the DNS part too little time, we seem to be giving the NTIA too much time. The NTIA has the comparatively simple task of determining whether a complete proposal a) has consensus, b) meets its criteria. I don't see how that takes 3 months. Furthermore, if the NTIA needs more time beyond the Sept deadline it can extend its contract for a month, two or three. No hard constraint there.

I of course understand the need to set aggressive goals and also understand that work tends to expand to fill out allotted time, so I ask for comment by the others from the GNSO - knowing what you know about how the Council and other WGs in GNSO or CCWGs work, do you think it is realistic to ask for a complete consensus proposal from the GNSO, CCNSO and GAC by early February? ________________________________________ From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:56 AM To: Russ Housley Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline

Russ, thanks.

Here’s a version with suggested changes I tried to describe.

Paul.

_______________________________________________ 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

Joe:

In the meeting some one had said That they has spoken to NTIA which said they didn't have a specific timeline in mind.

Since I was presenting the timeline in London, I took it upon myself to ask Larry Strickling. I thought the information would help the group make a plan. Larry said that he did not know, and he pointed out that some of the events are outside the control of NTIA. As I said at the meeting, it was pointed out that Congressional hearings are possible, even likely. The timeline first discussed on this mail list provided 8 weeks for NTIA evaluation and approval. Based on the the discussion in London, we decided that a draft should be delivered to NTIA as early as possible, and we should give NTIA more than 8 weeks. Russ

Paul, The excel visualization of the timeline is very helpful. It really puts things in perspective. Thanks for putting that together. One of the revisions you have made to the timeline document says, ³Comments from IANA and NTIA are strongly desired.² My role as a committee member representing the IANA functions operator will provide the opportunity to share thoughts from the IANA functions operator on the strawman proposal as the committee compiles it. Do you think it is necessary to call out a request for comments from the IANA functions operator given the committee has a representative from the functions on it? Thanks, -- Elise From: Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> Date: Sunday, July 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Cc: Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline

Thanks Russ.

As the comments show, we¹re in a hard place with the schedule, and I think the only solution is a lot flexibility, and parallelising work as much as possible.

Clearly all participants will have a hard time with the schedules, but all need to make a very best effort to move the work along, and I would prefer to challenge everyone at this early stage, while being flexible about target deadlines as they come up (and, about late submissions). We need to express clearly that we are coordinating not policing, and we will join the community in taking account of the reality of the situation.

Let¹s talk of targets rather than deadlines, and best-efforts to meet them.

The more I think about it, I think document management like what was used in NetMundial would be very very useful to the process, so I wonder if Hartmut can help to get access to that system?

Here is a suggested revision of the timeline document.

Also attached is an Excel view of the timeline, which may be useful to develop further.

Paul.

Thanks Lynn. He also is about to speak at the following AEI event: http://www.aei.org/events/2014/07/22/who-gets-to-govern-the-internet-a-conve... You could watch it live on the site. Best, Jon On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:

Dear committee members,

Given we were traveling/tied up in the ICG meetings last week, I thought many of you might not have seen this.

Larry Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information spoke at the US IGF held last Wednesday. He speaks directly to the transition (roughly last third of the speech).

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-lawrence-e-strickling-a...

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