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

Tue Jun 23 01:31:22 UTC 2015

Alissa,Patrik
Once this draft is finalized, it is better to be coordinated wiuth
co-chairs of CCWG with a view that the timeline be consistent with what
they would in clude in their reply
It would inappropriate if NTIA receive two responses from ICG and CCWG
which are inconsistent
Regards
Kavouss

2015-06-22 18:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150623/e94f53dd/attachment.html>