[Internal-cg] "Implementation"

[James M. Bladel]

Agree with Keith¹s edits.

Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this?  As a part of our
request to Names?  The implementation timeline associated with this
group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path.

Thanks‹

J.


On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

>Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS
>below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal
>development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. NTIA's
>request included transition planning and associated
>timeframes...including finalization and implementation.
>
>Regards,
>Keith
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>Alissa Cooper
>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM
>To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"
>
>On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what it
>means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we can go
>out to the operational communities and gather input about implementation
>time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter from Larry:
>
>"I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the
>transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the
>community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition
>plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the
>three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before
>the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these
>issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in
>Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the
>United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the
>proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the
>CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be
>implemented prior to the ending of the contract."
>
>Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go ask
>the communities is something along the following lines:
>
>"The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational
>communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND
>implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities
>have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the
>NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities).
>From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think
>your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
>AND implementation of these aspects?"
>
>This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the
>communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the NTIA
>contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the extent
>to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by the
>communities.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org