[Internal-cg] "Implementation"

Wed May 20 18:12:18 UTC 2015

Joe:

I also missed the call, but the simplest approach would be to examine the community with the longest timeline (spoiler: it's Names) and make that the critical path. 

This assume we have no intentions of pushing back or negotiating the calendars the three communities submit to us. 

J. 

Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. 

> On May 20, 2015, at 10:36, Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Sorry to have missed the call, and if this was already discussed...
> 
> What is our role in consolidating the implementation recommendations in terms of our proposal?  Are any of the specific community implementation actions sequentially predicates for other community action?  Do we just list the three implementation plans as part of the proposal or do we have to consider any sequencing or integration?  Will there be a timeline of implementation for our proposal as a whole?
> 
> Joe 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:28 PM
> To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"
> 
> Thanks, Keith. Makes sense that they would respond directly.   I guess we
> can presume that their response will be factored in to NTIA's consideration of an extension.
> 
> 
> J.
> 
>> On 5/20/15, 10:23 , "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks James. 
>> 
>> The CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs received their own version of the 
>> same letter from NTIA, so I expect they'll be responding directly.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Keith
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:22 PM
>> To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"
>> 
>> Agree with Keith¹s edits.
>> 
>> Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this?  As a part of 
>> our request to Names?  The implementation timeline associated with this 
>> group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path.
>> 
>> Thanks<
>> 
>> J.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS 
>>> below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal 
>>> development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG.
>>> NTIA's request included transition planning and associated 
>>> timeframes...including finalization and implementation.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Keith
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
>>> Alissa Cooper
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM
>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"
>>> 
>>> On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what 
>>> it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we 
>>> can go out to the operational communities and gather input about 
>>> implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the 
>>> letter from Larry:
>>> 
>>> "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."
>>> 
>>> Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go 
>>> ask the communities is something along the following lines:
>>> 
>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational 
>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE 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).
>>> From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you 
>>> think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL 
>>> DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?"
>>> 
>>> This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the 
>>> communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the 
>>> NTIA contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the 
>>> extent to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by 
>>> the communities.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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