[Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Joe,

i do not understand what you are saying. Is this in reference to the
changes I proposed for the final paragraph or to the whole draft?
What exactly is your point?

Daniel


On 19.06.15 18:21 , joseph alhadeff wrote:
> I would think perhaps a bit more flesh on the bones and a slightly
> different track; my concern with Daniel's approach was that it provides
> the impression that a reason reason for parallel implementation by the
> communities is to meet our time frame, when we are developing a time
> frame based on their possibility..
> 
> The role of the ICG in coordination is highly dependent on the ability
> of the communities to provide us with the inputs that are the subject of
> coordination.  Once we have the proposals from the communities (we still
> await one) in stable form, we anticipate that our process could be
> accomplished in three to four months, with some possible slippage due to
> the need for further public comment should substantial changes to the
> initial combined proposal be needed after a first round of comments.  We
> are also mindful of some possible dependencies between the names
> proposal and the other accountability work-stream which may also impact
> timing.
> 
> In relation to the implementation of the proposal, the communities have
> brought to our attention that some elements of implementation may be
> dependent on other actions while other elements may be run in parallel. 
> We have discussed and are inclined to have the communities provider
> better inputs to us on the sequence of steps and potential for an "as
> ready" for implementation model (enabling a phased implementation) once
> the proposal has been endorsed.  Our collecting this information will
> not only assist in allowing everyone to better understand the
> time-frames of implementation, but will also  help assure coordination
> across communities regarding the ordering and execution of
> implementation steps as appropriate.
> 
> On 6/19/2015 10:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>> "Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take
>> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the
>> IANA department in some way, and will therefore require time and
>> attention from the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this
>> can be done in parallell with other activities, and will not take longer
>> time than other activities."
>>
>> To make my suggestions concrete and succumb again to the temptation of
>> drafting in committee:
>>
>> "Many of the implementation steps across the three operational
>> communities need to take place in parallel in order to realise the time
>> line we have outlined in this response. We have received signals that
>> ICANN staff resources may become critical if this parallelism is not
>> realised. It is therefore important that all parties are not blocked or
>> perceive to be prevented from taking all steps that can be taken before
>> NTIA withdraws. We therefore ask you to clarify that it is acceptable to
>> you to make all preparations that do not directly affect the agreement
>> you have with ICANN."
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19.06.15 14:30 , Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> Thanks for the good thinking and initial drafting that went into this.
>>>
>>> My view is that Alternative 2 (explicitly tie the timeframe to the
>>> CCWG work and coordinate a response) is the better option.
>>> As you note, the response you have drafted seems to align more with
>>> Alternative 1. But a lot of the material in there can be (re)used as
>>> we prepare a response based on Alternative 2. I doubt whether CCWG
>>> chairs have taken the more global view of the timeline that we have
>>> put together, so the draft will come in handy as we move forward
>>>
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:24 PM
>>>> To: ICG
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Alissa and myself spent some time starting to write a response to
>>>> the inquiry
>>>> from Strickling. You can see the initial draft below. When
>>>> discussing the
>>>> content we did though detect a few things which we do believe can
>>>> change
>>>> the response. Let me take them in random order.
>>>>
>>>> A. The question was related to when transition can happen, and that
>>>> is not
>>>> before a complete proposal has not only been submitted to NTIA, but
>>>> also
>>>> been implemented.
>>>>
>>>> B. The longest timeframe we have got is 3-4 months, but on top of
>>>> this is an
>>>> unknown quantity of time needed for various steps in the US Government
>>>> for evaluation and final transition. If the last (unknown) steps
>>>> takes say 3-4
>>>> months as well, we talk about a 6-8 month timeframe.
>>>>
>>>> C. The timeline of CCWG Accountability is to be discussed Friday (i.e.
>>>> tomorrow). The timeline indications we have seen talk about
>>>> June-July 2016,
>>>> and one can ask whether any of the OC proposals can be claimed to be
>>>> implemented before CCWG Accountability is done.
>>>>
>>>> D. In reality, the question is not about detailed timeline, but
>>>> rather in a
>>>> broad view how long time is needed. And given the unknowns it is
>>>> probably
>>>> difficult to make estimations in shorter time units than 3 months,
>>>> or maybe
>>>> 6 month units.
>>>>
>>>> Based on the above, that we have got responses that required
>>>> implementation steps in the proposals from the operational communities
>>>> can be done within 3-4 months, that the CCWG Accountability have a
>>>> timeline that indicate June-July 2016 (which is further away in
>>>> time) we draw
>>>> the conclusion that the CCWG Accountability is what will set the
>>>> timeline,
>>>> and because of that ICG have two alternatives:
>>>>
>>>> 1. To state we do believe ICG proposal can be implemented in 3-4 months
>>>> plus time it takes for US Government (which if that also takes 3-4
>>>> months
>>>> lead to 6-8 month timeframe).
>>>>
>>>> 2. Given the data we have, that CCWG is driving the timeline, we
>>>> coordinate
>>>> with CCWG Accountability and even though one letter was sent to ICG
>>>> Chairs and one to CCWG Chairs, we send in one response, which is built
>>>> upon mainly the timeline CCWG Accountability will discuss tomorrow, and
>>>> we use the data ICG have received as indications that ICG will be
>>>> faster than
>>>> CCWG regarding implementation.
>>>>
>>>> When we stopped working today, Alissa and I where leaning towards
>>>> alternative (2), although we (as you can see below) started writing on
>>>> something according to alternative (1).
>>>>
>>>> Please advice.
>>>>
>>>>     Patrik & Alissa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lawrence E. Strickling
>>>> Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information United States
>>>> Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your letter concerning the IANA stewardship
>>>> transition. As
>>>> noted in your letter, there are multiple steps remaining before the
>>>> transition
>>>> will be complete: the finalization of the transition proposal, the U.S.
>>>> Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and the implementation of the
>>>> work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the
>>>> transition.
>>>> This letter provides input about the first and last of these steps.
>>>>
>>>> The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number
>>>> resources and
>>>> protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just
>>>> received
>>>> the domain names proposal from the CWG. The finalization steps that
>>>> remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the
>>>> ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three
>>>> components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly
>>>> further work in the operational communities depending on the results
>>>> of the
>>>> assessments and public comment analysis. These steps are detailed in
>>>> the
>>>> attached timeline. The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be
>>>> concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to the
>>>> ICANN
>>>> Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October.
>>>>
>>>> The ICG considers the attached timeline to be optimistic. The
>>>> timeline may
>>>> be extended if additional time is needed for community work or public
>>>> comment analysis, or if the ICG determines that an additional public
>>>> comment period is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> We inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board
>>>> concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are
>>>> included at the end of this letter. Taken together, the responses
>>>> indicate
>>>> that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this time
>>>> relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require 3-4 months.
>>>> Many of
>>>> the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in
>>>> parallel and may be prepared before the transition is complete,
>>>> while for
>>>> other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at
>>>> present.
>>>> Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum 3-4 months will be
>>>> required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved
>>>> by the
>>>> U.S. government.
>>>>
>>>> The IETF community has indicated that it is prepared to transition
>>>> now. It is
>>>> possible that as further details concerning Post-Transition IANA
>>>> (PTI) become
>>>> available, more IETF community work and agreement may be required.
>>>>
>>>> The CRISP team and the RIRs indicated that the numbers community
>>>> will be
>>>> prepared to transition by September 30, 2015. Some elements
>>>> described in
>>>> the numbers community proposal, such as appointees to the Review
>>>> Committee, may not be finalized by that time, but these are not
>>>> considered
>>>> prerequisites for the transition.
>>>>
>>>> The CWG indicated that the work necessary to incorporate the PTI may
>>>> require 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple
>>>> iterations of relevant documentation. The time needed to implement
>>>> other
>>>> aspects of the CWG proposal, including relevant ICANN bylaws
>>>> changes, is
>>>> uncertain. [Insert pointer to CCWG response to NTIA here?]
>>>>
>>>> The ICANN Board's views concerning implementation time frames are
>>>> consistent with these indications from the operational communities. The
>>>> Board believes the IETF and RIR proposals could be implemented in a
>>>> matter
>>>> several of weeks, that the PTI implementation may take several
>>>> months, and
>>>> that the time required to implement the CCWG Accountability work
>>>> items is
>>>> uncertain.
>>>>
>>>> Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take
>>>> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact
>>>> the IANA
>>>> department in some way, and will therefore require time and
>>>> attention from
>>>> the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be
>>>> done in
>>>> parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than
>>>> other
>>>> activities.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>