[Internal-cg] Our timeline

[Alissa Cooper]

Hi Lynn,

On May 22, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.com> wrote:

> Thanks Alissa,
> 
> I assume we are making the start of this timetable from the date we have a complete CWG proposal?    

Yes. At this point I don’t think we should focus so much on the dates as on the amount of time we need, i.e., if we think we need approximately 4 months once we receive the CWG proposal, that is good information to have. Then we can put the wheels in motion whenever we receive the CWG proposal.

> Further,  do we have the time to wait for the responses to the planned "implementation" discussion to determine our own timeline, as that also asks the OC's how much time they need to complete proposal development?   

I really want us to decouple the discussions about the ICG time frames and the implementation time frames. They are independent. We can draw conclusions about our own timeline while we wait to hear back from the OCs about both implementation timing and proposal completion timing (in the case of the CWG).

> With the recent completion of the CWG Public Comment period, it is unclear to me what next steps the other OC's may undertake so their input here could be instructive.

The only input we will need from the other OCs is about implementation time frames.

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from NTIA.
>> 
>> I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations:
>> 
>> *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own
>> *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the communities to make edits if necessary
>> *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate summer holidays)
>> *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with …
>> *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary
>> *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal
>> 
>> The total ends up being about 4 months.
>> 
>> I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting.
>> 
>> I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our May 27 call to continue the discussion.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> <TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>