Hi Kavouss, I am quite familiar with all the statements Larry has made regarding timing and accountability. Did you have specific feedback on the updated timeline and the context I provided along with it? Thanks, Alissa On Feb 2, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Alissa, Thanks Please be aware that NO ONE SHOULD PUSH PRESUURE TO MAKE " VITE FAIT,MAL FAIT" NTIA CONTRACT B IS REQUZIRED TO BE EXTENDED. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL. Please read the statement of Lrry, in which he reiterate that accountability must be in place, included in the Bylaw and Article of incorporation before transition takes place. Kavouss

2015-02-02 21:14 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: Hi all,

I’ve taken a first stab at revising the ICG timeline (attached and in Dropbox at <https://www.dropbox.com/s/99nrslw6czblvio/TimelineGraphic-v6.xlsx?dl=0>). Inspired by the timetable we received from the CWG <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-January/002784.html>, I’ve called it “Best Case Timeline.” The portion showing CWG proposal development is aligned with what we received from the CWG, and the steps after that are contingent upon when we received the names proposal from them. Our current timeline graphic is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-graphic-10s...>.

Couple of overall comments:

(1) The timeline envisions that the bulk of our ICG time between now and June will be spent getting the IETF and RIR proposal components as final as possible in advance of our receipt of the names proposal from the CWG.

(2) All of the engagement of the operational communities in reaction to our Step I and Step II assessment processes are listed with the “if necessary” caveat. We need to build in time in case we have questions we need to send back to the communities, and we need to give them time to address those questions, but it’s also possible that we will not have questions and therefore the built-in time will not be necessary.

(3) In our proposal assembly and finalization process, we envisioned running two public comment periods after having assembled a complete proposal. This timeline suggests running a single public comment process instead. Given that the CWG will have run multiple public comment periods on the names piece of the proposal, and the IETF and RIR proposal components will have been quite stable and thoroughly vetted for many months by the time we can run a public comment process on the complete proposal, I think a single public comment process should be sufficient. This will also allow us to complete our work within two ICANN meeting cycles after our receipt of the names proposal.

(4) I’ve tried to take into account the timing of future ICANN meetings as well as the impact of holiday periods in putting this together.

(5) The timeline envisions us transmitting the final proposal to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA in March 2016. This assumes that the current NTIA contract will have been sufficiently extended beyond September 2015. If it does not get extended, of course we will have to re-evaluate not just the timeline but our work on the transition more broadly at that time.

It would be great to discussion about this going on the mailing list this week. I think we should reserve 90 minutes to discuss at our face-to-face meeting, with another 45 minutes or so of parking lot time in case we want to come back to it after the initial discussion.

Thanks, Alissa

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

I had an idea about another way to depict what we were talking about with respect to the timeline. The attached has two sheets — the first one shows timing up to June 2015, and the second shows timing after receipt of the names CWG proposal, whenever that occurs. This might be a more useful type of thing to publish at this point if we want to publish something. I did not add in more slack or another public comment period on the second sheet but I could if that’s what people think we should do. Sharing this as food for thought. Alissa On Feb 2, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

It’s a reasonable projection, Alissa. CWG finishing by June is indeed “best case”

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 3:15 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Revised ICG timeline

Hi all,

I’ve taken a first stab at revising the ICG timeline (attached and in Dropbox at <https://www.dropbox.com/s/99nrslw6czblvio/TimelineGraphic-v6.xlsx?dl=0>). Inspired by the timetable we received from the CWG <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-January/002784.html>, I’ve called it “Best Case Timeline.” The portion showing CWG proposal development is aligned with what we received from the CWG, and the steps after that are contingent upon when we received the names proposal from them. Our current timeline graphic is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-graphic-10s...>.

Couple of overall comments:

(1) The timeline envisions that the bulk of our ICG time between now and June will be spent getting the IETF and RIR proposal components as final as possible in advance of our receipt of the names proposal from the CWG.

(2) All of the engagement of the operational communities in reaction to our Step I and Step II assessment processes are listed with the “if necessary” caveat. We need to build in time in case we have questions we need to send back to the communities, and we need to give them time to address those questions, but it’s also possible that we will not have questions and therefore the built-in time will not be necessary.

(3) In our proposal assembly and finalization process, we envisioned running two public comment periods after having assembled a complete proposal. This timeline suggests running a single public comment process instead. Given that the CWG will have run multiple public comment periods on the names piece of the proposal, and the IETF and RIR proposal components will have been quite stable and thoroughly vetted for many months by the time we can run a public comment process on the complete proposal, I think a single public comment process should be sufficient. This will also allow us to complete our work within two ICANN meeting cycles after our receipt of the names proposal.

(4) I’ve tried to take into account the timing of future ICANN meetings as well as the impact of holiday periods in putting this together.

(5) The timeline envisions us transmitting the final proposal to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA in March 2016. This assumes that the current NTIA contract will have been sufficiently extended beyond September 2015. If it does not get extended, of course we will have to re-evaluate not just the timeline but our work on the transition more broadly at that time.

It would be great to discussion about this going on the mailing list this week. I think we should reserve 90 minutes to discuss at our face-to-face meeting, with another 45 minutes or so of parking lot time in case we want to come back to it after the initial discussion.

Thanks, Alissa