[Internal-cg] Executive summary files for your review [was RE: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5]

Tue Jul 28 00:03:06 UTC 2015

Thanks Alissa for your responses to my mail and your edits that have clarified some ambiguity in the document. I believe you have made the same edits in the main body of the report.
Mary Uduma

     On Monday, July 27, 2015 8:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

 Mary, all,
I’ve done some editing on the executive summary. Most of it is editorial but one piece that struck me as missing was a summary of the proposals themselves. I took the summary text from Part 0 and tried to shrink it further and added it here.
Per Manal’s comments re comment process and timeline: I don’t think either of those belong in the executive summary, nor in the ICG report. The public comment process instructions will all be on the public comment web site and I think it’s useful to maintain the separation between the substantive content of the document and the instructions and extra material relating to the public comment process. As for the timeline information, we have communicated separately about that to NTIA and the public, so I don’t see a need to re-hash it in the proposal or the executive summary. Readers should be focusing on the content of the document and the timeline material was primarily for the purpose of NTIA’s decision regarding the contract extension, which is a separate issue.
Responses to Mary’s points are below.
On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:

Jennifer and All,
I wrote comments direct at the dropbox regarding the Executive summary. Pardon me if I did it wrongly.Below are my comments and I hope it can still be taken into consideration.
"The ICG has concluded that the names proposal is completeon the condition that the...................., are concluded"
I am still struggling with this assertion  of conclusion by the ICG as there are some incomplete/outstanding issues in the names proposal.viz 
The CCWG work stream 1 ongoing process mentioned in the section 

I thought we concluded this on the last call, just as it is in the document now — that we only consider the names proposal complete pending the completion of CCWG Workstream 1.

The CP-! issue Vs the Framework of Interpretation, RFC 1591 on ccTLD

I thought we resolved this on the last call given that Keith raised this issue and seemed satisfied with the result.

The placehold regarding the iana.org issue, 

This is an implementation issue and clearly labeled as such in the proposal. We cannot expect all implementation issues to be finished before we consider the proposal complete, otherwise we will never finish. Many of them cannot be finished until it is known whether the proposal is accepted by the USG (precisely why it is called a “proposal” I think).

The incomplete SLE, etc

This is also an implementation issue. All three of the communities are working on their service level agreements, but none of these are gating on the proposal going froward.

Except I omitted some communications within the ICG, I feel the proposal is not complete without resolutions of these issues.I did suggest or asked if the paragraph could be reworded to "noting" instead of "concluded" since the ICG would still have to make a determination on the completeness of the names proposal after the CCWG work S1 is accepted by the names community. ("At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete”)

I have made this edit in the attached.

However, if the ICG had concluded that the proposal is complete inspite of the oustandings, the WS1 of the CCWG, kindly clarify.  

I thought this is what we concluded on the last call.

My second comment was on the workability section.Does the ICG not consider the layers of revews in the names proposal and those of the other two proposals a workability issue? I do see workability issue here and would request  that this question be included in the matrix of questions. 
"How will the layers or multiple reviews in the names proposal and those in the other two communities' proposals inpact on IFO's service delivery?

I thought we also concluded this on the last call, namely that the IANA department is already subject to multiple reviews from the different communities, so the proposed combination of reviews is something that the department is already accustomed to handling. I would expect as well that the division of labor within the department is such that handling the reviews is manageable (e.g., at the IETF the protocol parameters staff are the folks involved in the performance reviews and reporting and I wouldn’t expect them to also be involved in the reviews for the other functions if they do not actually work on the other functions).
Thanks,Alissa

Mary Uduma

On Friday, July 24, 2015 3:56 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

Hi Joe and All, Both attachments from Joe are available for review in this Dropbox folder (which also contains all the latest versions of everything you need to review for the upcoming public comment period). Dropbox folder link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Manal Ismail' <manal at tra.gov.eg>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5 Colleagues:

I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to end abruptly?

Happy for any thoughts.

Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive summary to drop box?

I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could be useful elsewhere...

JoeOn 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
Hi All,  Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well asthe requests from Manal below:  "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggestedlink(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions(for 2014) per area) .."  Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization processhttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment wordtemplate (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so ifwe want to link to this in the ICG report.  2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANApresentation linked here:https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-department-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that isenvisaged.  Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge theICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.  As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documentsfor your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2   Please let me know if you have any questions.  Best Regards,  Jennifer      -----Original Message-----From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of ManalIsmailSent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PMTo: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.orgSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5  Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and providefeedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates ..   Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assistin inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which theICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph(showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..  I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Althoughit is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review andseveral edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)..  I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would reviewand provide further guidance ..  Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect thecurrent status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) whichwon't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for publiccomments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for publiccomment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of theaccountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?  Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..  Kind Regards--Manal  -----Original Message-----From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of LynnSt.AmourSent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PMTo: internal-cg at ianacg.orgSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5  Again, thanks much Manal,  To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and madesome edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  Iwould appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is acritical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to theExec. Summary.    Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have itwrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,unfortunately).  And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections toensure they reflect the latest positions?  Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-siteno later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment periodtimetable of July 31st.  Many thanks,  Lynn  _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/20915b1d/attachment.html>