[Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry

[Alissa Cooper]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: Time frame inquiry
> Date: June 12, 2015 at 1:00:34 PM PDT
> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>, "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir at mbash.net>, "steve at shinkuro.com" <steve at shinkuro.com>
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
> Steve asked that I send the note below on his behalf. 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> 
> Theresa
> 
> _______________
> Dear Alissa,  
>  
> Thank you for your 1 June 2015 note regarding NTIA’s communication to the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability on the status of the transition planning, and the associated time-frames for finalizing the proposal and the implementation.
>  
> The Board looks forward to receiving the proposals upon completion by the community. As noted before, upon receipt of the proposals, we will transmit them to NTIA, accompanied by any additional comments we may have already reflected in our input to the community
>  
> In this regard, as to the status of the proposals, we’re pleased to see the operational communities hard at work in reaching conclusions, and look forward to the submission of the naming community proposal to the ICG. With regards to the accountability process, we welcome the progress made and look forward to the conclusion of the recommendations on Workstream 1.
>  
> As to the steps leading to the final execution of the proposals and recommendations, we see several phases, that can be outlined at a high level as: 
> ·      Preparation of the proposal and forwarding to NTIA;
> ·      The period in which NTIA and the US Government review the proposal, including any work ICANN needs to undertake during that time-frame;
> ·      Path leading to implementation upon sign-off by the US Government and the ICANN Board.
> ·      Final implementation and operationalization
>  
> With regards to the path leading to implementation, the Board believes that it will be necessary for ICANN to follow its normal processes for dealing with reviews.  This will include the normal process for bylaws changes, where the proposed new text will be published for public comment before Board approval, and the normal process of taking public comment for important implementation options and details.
>  
> With regards to timelines, we expect the implementation time-frames applicable for each of the operational communities to vary. For example, we would expect the IETF and RIR parts of the ICG proposal, as currently prepared, to be fairly straight-forward and we’d estimate each requires a matter of weeks to finalize. The naming community proposal will take longer - we’d estimate several months - given the new elements that need to be implemented, including, for example, bylaws changes and structural changes necessary to form the PTI.  Another example is that time will be required for the community to select representation to, the CSC. To the extent any parts of the ICG proposal rely on the Accountability process recommendations, implementation time-lines will need to take those into consideration.
>  
> With regards to the Accountability process, it’s premature to determine how long implementation will take. Experiences from the ATRT and organizational review processes though indicate that it could take at least two ICANN meeting cycles. The timeline will be strongly impacted by the implementation mechanisms needed for the proposed accountability improvements.
>  
> To the extent possible, we will strive to do advance planning to prepare for putting elements into place with regards to the respective proposals, to then require as short a time-frame as possible to implement and operationalize any final parts necessary for the conclusion of the contract. This includes, for example, any pre-work with respect to identifying the bylaws changes.
>  
> In working with the community, and in reviewing the community timelines, we are preparing for receipt of the ICG proposal around the ICANN 54 meeting, together with the CCWG Workstream 1 proposal. We anticipate that there will then be a time frame established for the NTIA’s review, during which we can begin implementation work. The timeline of implementation will be impacted most directly by, for example, complexities within the proposals, the need for the community to utilize ICANN’s meetings for any elements relating to community mechanisms, or proposals that require additional implementation work to complete. 
> 
> Steve
>> 
>>> From: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Time frame inquiry
>>> Date: June 1, 2015 at 8:39:38 PM EDT
>>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>>> Cc: "Stephen D. Crocker" <steve at shinkuro.com>, internal-cg at ianacg.org, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net>
>>> 
>>> Alissa,
>>> 
>>> Thanks very much for your message.  We will coordinate internally and respond to you and the operational communities.
>>> 
>>> Steve
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Steve,
>>>> 
>>>> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Sec. Strickling [1] that included the following text:
>>>> 
>>>> "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, 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.”
>>>> 
>>>> The ICG understands that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter.
>>>> 
>>>> The ICG is inquiring with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete their 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) [2][3][4]. The ICG expects ICANN to provide input directly to those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that the ICANN Board thinks we should know in formulating our response to Sec. Strickling, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC for consideration by the ICG. Should you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf
>>>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html
>>>> [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html
>>>> [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150612/1029823f/attachment.html>