<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>In the second paragraph of the NTIA LETTER, IT IS STATED </div><div>Qoute</div><div>"<em> ......including the community views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and <strong>IMPLEMENT IT </strong>after it approved "</em></div><div>Unquote</div><div>The report of the ICG,among other things mainly depends on the report from CWG which is still in commenting period..</div><div>That report ,once finalized is also depends on the activities of CCWG for work stream 1 which is also in public comment period.</div><div>At the last CCWG CALL, THE TIME LINE FOR THE COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF WORK STREAM �1 was envisaged to� be not� earlier than July 2016. </div><div>Moreover, we do not yet know the precise timeline for the completion of CWG REPORT and the exact time that such report will be sent to ICG for review.</div><div>Taking into account the speific question of NTIA "<em>how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and <strong>IMPLEMENT IT </strong>after it approved "</em>�,ICG needs to discuss and provide its answer, no doubt after the ICANN 53 meeting during which the f2f meeting of ICG will take place.</div><div>In view of the above, we should have a fairly conservative time line for discussion at our next call as well as f2f meeting</div><div>As usual, some ICG colleagues are in hurry to� send the ICG prioposal to NTIA.,</div><div>I draw the attention of the chair and the managemnet team as well as all distinguished and respectful ciolleagues of �,.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-05-14 13:13 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg" target="_blank">manal@tra.gov.eg</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Dear Alissa ..<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Apologies for the late reply ..<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Comments inline below ..<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Kind Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">--Manal<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u>�<u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> Internal-cg [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org" target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alissa Cooper<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:internal-cg@ianacg.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@ianacg.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u>�<u></u></p>
<div><span>
<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\u2019s 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:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">[MI]: Agree ..<u></u><u></u></span></p><span>
<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\u2019 time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG.<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u>�<u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">[MI]: Agree .. but I would also add a \u2018step 0\u2019 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?<u></u><u></u></span></p><span>
<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" target="_blank">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.�<u></u><u></u></p>
</span><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u>�<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">[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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u>�<u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><span>
<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\u2019s
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:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">[MI]: Fair Enough ..<u></u><u></u></span></p><span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
We\u2019ve 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" target="_blank">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u>�<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">[MI]: Good .. Though, as highlighted above, I\u2019m 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 ..<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u>�<u></u></span></p>
</div><span>
<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>
\u2014<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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u>�<u></u></p>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org" target="_blank">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>