<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear Alissa ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Apologies for the late reply ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Comments inline below ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Kind Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--Manal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alissa Cooper<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> internal-cg@ianacg.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. <br>
<br>
First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and
bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can
try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">[MI]: Agree ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition:<br>
<br>
1. Finalization of the transition proposal.<br>
2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal.<br>
3. Implementation of the proposal.<br>
<br>
The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think
we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">[MI]: Agree .. but I would also add a ‘step 0’ which is official submission of the names proposal to the ICG .. Having said that, do we know that the CWG will
be able to submit their final final names proposal while the CCWG Stream1 proposal is still under discussion, or should we seek a confirmation or further guidance on that?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of
ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox <<a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsjrybo577ycrhe/TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx?dl=0">https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsjrybo577ycrhe/TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx?dl=0</a>> is an updated version of our timeline showing how we
could accomplish this. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">[MI]: Thanks for your efforts in compiling this .. My memory fails me, have we agreed on one or two public comment periods, at the end of the Singapore meeting?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s
letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty
is something we likely want to reflect in our response.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">[MI]: Fair Enough ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment <<a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en</a>>.
It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">[MI]: Good .. Though, as highlighted above, I’m not sure whether the shift between the timelines of CWG & CCWG would affect the submission date of the final
proposal of the CWG, and consequently the ICG timeline ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Alissa<br>
<br>
—<br>
<br>
Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline:<br>
<br>
- The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on the full combined proposal.<br>
- The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting during the second week of September.<br>
- ICANN 54 is October 18-22.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>