[Internal-cg] Our timeline
joseph alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Jun 8 18:22:31 UTC 2015
Colleagues:
I thought we had agreed on the call that a second consultation would be
addressed as a possibility in the descriptive text and not specifically
addressed in the time line as it was hard to predict details about the
second consultation until we knew the scope and nature of the possible
changes.
Joe
On 6/8/2015 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Alissa,
> I fully support Martin in saying that he has one very significant
> concern - the chart shows only one consultation. and further saying
> that he is not convinced that that is enough, nor that it is
> reasonable to reduce the number of consultation periods. (And this is
> a point he and many others like me made a number of times now. No
> one has said we were wrong ,I confirmed his views that the second
> comment period never makes it back into the timeline.) We might be
> lucky and little comes out of the comments period that leads to
> significant new material or re-thinking.
> I understand some people like ...... do not want even having one
> consultation and were of the view that every thing is perfect and we
> have to make transition even yesterday..
> Unfortunately I do not share that views.
> For me as a member of ICG and Internet Community the second commenting
> period is ABOLUTELY NECESSAR AND CRUVCIAL.
> Please carefully consider the activities of the CWG in which as
> results of the two consulatations they are better covered.
> Once again DO RUSH.
> be prudent and patient
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-06-08 19:09 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
> <mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>>:
>
> Sorry, I sort of missed this discussion...
>
> I agree with Paul that we do need to be realistic about timescales
> - ours and the operational communities'. This draft does not.
>
> In particular, as we go into the drafting phase, we probably need
> to think about resources. (The team supporting the CWG-Names
> Functions is large, supporting the very high number of conference
> calls and drafting. I don't think that we will be quite this
> intense, but we need to think carefully about what we need to
> produce and how we will do it.)
>
> However, I have one very significant concern - the chart shows
> only one consultation. I am not convinced that that is enough,
> nor that it is reasonable to reduce the number of consultation
> periods. (And this is a point I have made a number of times now.
> No one has said I'm wrong, but the second comment period never
> makes it back into the timeline.) We might be lucky and little
> comes out of the comments period that leads to significant new
> material or re-thinking. As a pessimist at heart, I'd love to be
> pleasantly surprised.
>
> That doesn't mean that we have nothing in Dublin. But it does
> mean that we could be using a re-draft for discussions and an
> opportunity to do any fine tuning with the OCs.
>
> Martin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
> <mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
> Sent: 27 May 2015 05:54
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Our timeline
>
> Alissa, this looks like progress to me. Just one question below.
>
> On 22 May 2015, at 7:37, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
> > One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG
> timeline
> > for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times
> > but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to
> > allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and
> before we
> > submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for
> transmission
> > to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to
> have
> > an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from
> > NTIA.
> >
> > I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic,
> which is
> > also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations:
> >
> > *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own
> > *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the
> > communities to make edits if necessary
>
> I’m not sure how the communities would “make edits” during this
> short period, or for what reason. I suppose this is suggested in
> case of conflicts identified, where the ICG may need to request
> clarifications or modifications from the communities? If so, then
> I’m not sure it is an “editing” process; it may be better
> described as a process of “consultation” between the IGC and
> community representatives, to identify solutions which would be
> included into the ICG’s plan, and subject to comment in the next step.
>
> Also I think this step is not just one of assessing the proposals,
> but it is in fact the assembly of the single ICG proposal, from
> those components.
>
> I would restate this step as follows:
>
> *3 weeks for us to assemble all three proposals together into a
> single plan, in consultation with communities if necessary
> regarding any interactions or conflicts
>
> Paul.
>
>
> > *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment
> > period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate
> > summer holidays)
> > *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with …
> > *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary
> > *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal
> >
> > The total ends up being about 4 months.
> >
> > I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step
> of the
> > process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take
> longer,
> > if the communities need more time, if the public comments
> received are
> > contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an
> > estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four
> > months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN
> > meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos
> > Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting.
> >
> > I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then
> use our
> > May 27 call to continue the discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alissa
> >
> >
> > [TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net
> <mailto:dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20150608/f5b6b697/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list