[Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Mon May 18 18:11:25 UTC 2015


Thanks Kavouss. I agree with your points below.

I think one of the key questions for us is whether to do 1 or 2 public comment periods (e.g., comment and reply comment). There is obviously a serious timeline implication depending on what we choose.

Alissa

On May 7, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Alissa,
> Thank you very much putting these  initial thoughts to gether for internal consultation within the ICG
> I wish to comment on each paragraph of your intial thoughts as follows
> 1. Introductory paragraph
>  
> " I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. "
>  
> Comments
>  
> TKS
>  
> 2. First Paragraph 
> 
> "First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion"
> .
> Comments
>  
> Yes but without any NOTE from ICG i.e. each operational community will take the relevant part of the NTIA statement to its community and come back to ICG with comment, if any
>  
> 3. Second Paragraph
> 
> «Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition:"
>  
> Comments
> 
> YES, We need to discuss it among ourselves, first through the mailng linst and then with one or two conference call( s)
>  
> Subparagraph  3.1,3 2 and 3 3 
> 1. Finalization of the transition proposal.
> 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal.
> 3. Implementation of the proposal.
>  
> Comments
> Yes, to be carefully examined and analized
>  
> 4. Third Paragraph
> “The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is
> especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG.”
>  
> Comments
> Yes ,
> 
> 5. Fourth Paragraph
> 
> “The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1”.
>  
> Comments
>  
> With whom?  .It is expected and in fact necessary that all of us be involved in the discussion
> “ We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox <https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsjrybo577ycrhe/TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx?dl=0> is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. “
>  
> Comments
> It is a very optimistic view, I suggest we indicate that, we should undevour to the best of our ability to conclude our process  by the end of October and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 toward the end of November  Consequently we need to adjust the timeline and indicate that the timeline is an initial planning time management which will be periodically reviewed at the forthcoming ICG virtual or physical meetings
>  
> 6. Fifth Paragraph
> “if the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response.”
>  
> Comments
>  
> Yes
> Since everything till after ICANN 53 is internal , we will review and adjust the timeline.
>  
> 
> 
> 7.Sixth Paragraph
> “We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en>. It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54”.
> Comments
> The CCWG timeline is currently a gestimate as it very much depends on the comment received by CWG and impact on that on the CCWG activities as well as comments received by CCWG by beginning of June and incorporation of thaose in the second draft and results of debate at ICANN 53.
>  
> 7. last paragraph
> 
> “I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.”
> 
> Comments
> 
> Yes .In fact we will certainly also have time for this on our next calls and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.”
> 
> Additional Comments
> I understand that you have referred to one single public commenting period
> I think it is not sufficient as we need to have two public comments period, this issue was discussed at Singapore meeting and there was general agreement on that.
> Please kindly note that we MUST AVOID sending something to ICANN / NTIA which does not have broad support of the community. This fact has been emphasized in NTIA announcement and reiterated by Larry at various occasions
> 
> Regards
> Kavouss 
> 
> 2015-05-07 21:58 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. 
> 
> First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion.
> 
> Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition:
> 
> 1. Finalization of the transition proposal.
> 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal.
> 3. Implementation of the proposal.
> 
> The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG.
> 
> The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox <https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsjrybo577ycrhe/TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx?dl=0> is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. 
> 
> If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response.
> 
> We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en>. It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54.
> 
> I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>> 
> Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline:
> 
> - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on the full combined proposal.
> - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting during the second week of September.
> - ICANN 54 is October 18-22.
> 
> 
> 
> On May 6, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Fiona Alexander <FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov>
>>> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition
>>> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT
>>> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" <Alissa at cooperw.in>, "paf at frobbit.se" <paf at frobbit.se>, "mbashir at mbash.net" <mbashir at mbash.net>
>>> Cc: Larry Strickling <LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov>, "fadi.chehade at icann.org" <fadi.chehade at icann.org>
>>> 
>>> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition.  A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG.
>>>  
>>> Fiona
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Fiona M. Alexander
>>> Associate Administrator for International Affairs
>>> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>>> (202) 482-1866
>>> www.ntia.doc.gov
>>>  
>>>  
>> <Letter to ICG May 6.pdf>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150518/948bc258/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list