Colleagues, prior to the ICG call tomorrow where timeline as well as step2 assessment shall be discussed I’d like to draw your attention to ongoing CWG discussion re the level of implementation detail needed to be covered by the proposals (see attached). I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline. I’d like to encourage for the discussion tomorrow in order to come up with guidlines applicable for all the communities. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:59 PM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: John Poole ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal. For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)? Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between? For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one? I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me). And I'd rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than slower. So, I would actually prefer to be wrong. But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete proposal. That's what matters. They in turn can consult Larry Strickling if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds. Then we can go forward with certainty. I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended? Greg
I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline.
Quick reaction: First off, I think it is not the ICG opinion that matters. Once again, we need broad community backing of a plan to make it credible. I am more interested in seeing that we get results that are backed by the communities and that have gone through a sufficient process, rather than inserting my own opinions on what the proposal should say. The CWG needs to see themselves as being in charge, and they need to make the difficult decisions and create community consensus so that the world has something that we can rely on wrt future IANA arrangements on names. Secondly, that being said I think the answer on what level of implementation detail is sufficient is that it depends. Situations are different. As an example, 98% of what is in the IETF proposal is something that we’ve had in place for a decade, and we have lots of experience from it. I think that definitely qualifies as sufficient detail :-) And the remaining 2% are things where the community found the level of guidance in the proposal sufficient. I have no worries in this respect. But if you have a different situation, you may want a differing level of detail. Lets say you have a proposal that creates a completely new entity for some task. While requiring a decade of experience on that new thing might be going too far :-) I think some level of detail is needed. Do you need all contracts everywhere, ready to be signed? No. Do you need to have a clear idea of what you are creating? Yes. For a new entity, a charter would definitely be in my list of ready things to have. Jari
Jari: The detail needs to be sufficient to address the issues of concern related to the implementation as you point out. Where there is nothing new about the implementation, the existing implementation can be referenced with a statement of any changes related to that implementation. Only that which is different would require some further information. Things that are new would need better descriptions, including how they may be held accountable under the respective community process, if they too are new. While the communities writ large, not the ICG, are the arbiters of what is substantively good enough for their portion of the proposal, we do have a role in making sure that the proposal has enough information to address the questions/issue raised by NTIA as well as to assure that the information can serve as a basis for support of the overall proposal across communities. best- Joe On 2/24/2015 12:46 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline. Quick reaction:
First off, I think it is not the ICG opinion that matters. Once again, we need broad community backing of a plan to make it credible. I am more interested in seeing that we get results that are backed by the communities and that have gone through a sufficient process, rather than inserting my own opinions on what the proposal should say. The CWG needs to see themselves as being in charge, and they need to make the difficult decisions and create community consensus so that the world has something that we can rely on wrt future IANA arrangements on names.
Secondly, that being said I think the answer on what level of implementation detail is sufficient is that it depends. Situations are different. As an example, 98% of what is in the IETF proposal is something that we’ve had in place for a decade, and we have lots of experience from it. I think that definitely qualifies as sufficient detail :-) And the remaining 2% are things where the community found the level of guidance in the proposal sufficient. I have no worries in this respect.
But if you have a different situation, you may want a differing level of detail. Lets say you have a proposal that creates a completely new entity for some task. While requiring a decade of experience on that new thing might be going too far :-) I think some level of detail is needed. Do you need all contracts everywhere, ready to be signed? No. Do you need to have a clear idea of what you are creating? Yes. For a new entity, a charter would definitely be in my list of ready things to have.
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I generally agree with what Jari says below and wanted to add in a few more thoughts. I think it’s important to distinguish the time at which the proposal will be submitted to NTIA from the time at which the transition will take place. These are two different milestones. We have the RFP that asks the communities to produce proposals so that we can get them submitted to NTIA. If the CWG has questions about what belongs in the proposal or what criteria we will use to evaluate the component proposals, we should certainly elaborate on those points. But that elaboration is a separate matter from the decision to actually move forward with the transition. That decision rests with NTIA (and ICANN, as the contracted party), not with the ICG. The CRISP proposal provides a good illustration of this. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for us to get to the end of our assessment process with the CRISP proposal incorporated as-is into the final transition proposal, and to submit the final proposal to NTIA (via the ICANN Board) even if the SLA and Review Committee described in the CRISP proposal have not yet been finalized (although of course it would be great if the RIRs make progress toward finalization between now and then). Whether the NTIA contract gets terminated before those two items are finalized is not a question for us to answer. Alissa On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline.
Quick reaction:
First off, I think it is not the ICG opinion that matters. Once again, we need broad community backing of a plan to make it credible. I am more interested in seeing that we get results that are backed by the communities and that have gone through a sufficient process, rather than inserting my own opinions on what the proposal should say. The CWG needs to see themselves as being in charge, and they need to make the difficult decisions and create community consensus so that the world has something that we can rely on wrt future IANA arrangements on names.
Secondly, that being said I think the answer on what level of implementation detail is sufficient is that it depends. Situations are different. As an example, 98% of what is in the IETF proposal is something that we’ve had in place for a decade, and we have lots of experience from it. I think that definitely qualifies as sufficient detail :-) And the remaining 2% are things where the community found the level of guidance in the proposal sufficient. I have no worries in this respect.
But if you have a different situation, you may want a differing level of detail. Lets say you have a proposal that creates a completely new entity for some task. While requiring a decade of experience on that new thing might be going too far :-) I think some level of detail is needed. Do you need all contracts everywhere, ready to be signed? No. Do you need to have a clear idea of what you are creating? Yes. For a new entity, a charter would definitely be in my list of ready things to have.
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Regarding the CRISP proposal, the work is starting now on development of the SLA and specification of the Review Committee so that these things are ready to be launched (all going well) by the time the transition takes place (and still on an assumption that this may happen in September). According to the CRISP proposal, this work is the responsibility of the RIRs, however the work will be conducted in consultation with the numbers community, and the CRISP team has been asked to ensure that the progress and outcome of that work is consistent with their proposal. I think we are working on an assumption that while the plan could not stipulate all of the implementation details, those details do need to be established so that implementation can go ahead at the time of the transition. Larry Strickling made this requirement pretty clear in one of his speeches I believe, though right now I cannot find the specific words he used. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 On 25 Feb 2015, at 7:06 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I generally agree with what Jari says below and wanted to add in a few more thoughts.
I think it’s important to distinguish the time at which the proposal will be submitted to NTIA from the time at which the transition will take place. These are two different milestones. We have the RFP that asks the communities to produce proposals so that we can get them submitted to NTIA. If the CWG has questions about what belongs in the proposal or what criteria we will use to evaluate the component proposals, we should certainly elaborate on those points. But that elaboration is a separate matter from the decision to actually move forward with the transition. That decision rests with NTIA (and ICANN, as the contracted party), not with the ICG.
The CRISP proposal provides a good illustration of this. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for us to get to the end of our assessment process with the CRISP proposal incorporated as-is into the final transition proposal, and to submit the final proposal to NTIA (via the ICANN Board) even if the SLA and Review Committee described in the CRISP proposal have not yet been finalized (although of course it would be great if the RIRs make progress toward finalization between now and then). Whether the NTIA contract gets terminated before those two items are finalized is not a question for us to answer.
Alissa
On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline.
Quick reaction:
First off, I think it is not the ICG opinion that matters. Once again, we need broad community backing of a plan to make it credible. I am more interested in seeing that we get results that are backed by the communities and that have gone through a sufficient process, rather than inserting my own opinions on what the proposal should say. The CWG needs to see themselves as being in charge, and they need to make the difficult decisions and create community consensus so that the world has something that we can rely on wrt future IANA arrangements on names.
Secondly, that being said I think the answer on what level of implementation detail is sufficient is that it depends. Situations are different. As an example, 98% of what is in the IETF proposal is something that we’ve had in place for a decade, and we have lots of experience from it. I think that definitely qualifies as sufficient detail :-) And the remaining 2% are things where the community found the level of guidance in the proposal sufficient. I have no worries in this respect.
But if you have a different situation, you may want a differing level of detail. Lets say you have a proposal that creates a completely new entity for some task. While requiring a decade of experience on that new thing might be going too far :-) I think some level of detail is needed. Do you need all contracts everywhere, ready to be signed? No. Do you need to have a clear idea of what you are creating? Yes. For a new entity, a charter would definitely be in my list of ready things to have.
Jari
_______________________________________________ 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
First off, I think it is not the ICG opinion that matters. Once again, we need broad community backing of a plan to make it credible. I am more interested in seeing that we get results that are backed by the communities and that have gone through a sufficient process, rather than inserting my own opinions on what the proposal should say. The CWG needs to see
Amen to Jari. Of course the NTIA has a legitimate concern about terminating the contract before anything solid is in place, and perhaps that is all they mean by "implementation." But the NTIA criteria for the transition are clear and have been in front of us for almost a year now. We translated those criteria into our RFP. These well-established criteria must not be supplanted by the game of "guess what Larry wants." Since "level of implementation" is not a well-defined thing and is not included within those criteria, we have to leave it to the operational communities to specify the level of implementation detail they are capable of and comfortable with. All we need to do is ensure that whatever they specify doesn't risk deviating from the NTIA criteria as it is implemented. As Jari says, the really crucial gating factor here, both politically and operationally, is what the community can accept and will support. If there is support there will be implementation. It is inconceivable to me that NTIA would reject or turn back a feasible plan, with a reasonable level of implementation detail, that had won broad support from the community. (But if they did, they would pay a very steep price politically, both domestically and in the international arena.) Maybe I am wrong, and I would be happy to be corrected if I am, but I get the sense that this sudden emphasis on level of implementation is driven by a concern about the timeline. But to me there is a gaping logical hole in this approach: pre-specifying more implementation detail will take _more_ time, not less - unless the demand for implementation is also a demand for doing something quick and dirty at the expense of quality and consensus.
themselves as being in charge, and they need to make the difficult decisions and create community consensus so that the world has something that we can rely on wrt future IANA arrangements on names.
Secondly, that being said I think the answer on what level of implementation detail is sufficient is that it depends. Situations are different. As an example, 98% of what is in the IETF proposal is something that we've had in place for a decade, and we have lots of experience from it. I think that definitely qualifies as sufficient detail :-) And the remaining 2% are things where the community found the level of guidance in the proposal sufficient. I have no worries in this respect.
But if you have a different situation, you may want a differing level of detail. Lets say you have a proposal that creates a completely new entity for some task. While requiring a decade of experience on that new thing might be going too far :-) I think some level of detail is needed. Do you need all contracts everywhere, ready to be signed? No. Do you need to have a clear idea of what you are creating? Yes. For a new entity, a charter would definitely be in my list of ready things to have.
Jari
I'm travelling, but due to be at my destination before the ICG call starts. Apologies in advance if I'm late to join. Paul On 24 February 2015 21:01:08 GMT+09:00, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Colleagues,
prior to the ICG call tomorrow where timeline as well as step2 assessment shall be discussed I’d like to draw your attention to ongoing CWG discussion re the level of implementation detail needed to be covered by the proposals (see attached).
I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline.
I’d like to encourage for the discussion tomorrow in order to come up with guidlines applicable for all the communities.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:59 PM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: John Poole ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG
It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal.
For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)?
Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between?
For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one?
I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me). And I'd rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than slower. So, I would actually prefer to be wrong.
But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete proposal. That's what matters. They in turn can consult Larry Strickling if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds. Then we can go forward with certainty.
I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended?
Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-- Paul Wilson, Director General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net
participants (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Jari Arkko -
joseph alhadeff -
Milton L Mueller -
Paul Wilson -
WUKnoben