[Internal-cg] "Implementation"

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon May 25 08:30:58 UTC 2015


Dear Alissa,
]Thank you very much for your effort.

Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment.

I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA
letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “*Accordingly
……Argentina”*

But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely

“*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.”* The reason is that  it is necessary to quote the exact language
used in NTIA letter relating to implementation .

May you please reconsider and correct the text

Regards

Kavouss

2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

> narelle:
>
> I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of
> the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does
> that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had
> alluded to previously.
>
> Best
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation
> timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer
> explicitly from the responses.
>
> Part IV last bullet point from the RFP:
>
> “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to
> take to complete, and any
>
> intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.”
>
>
>
> [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie
> “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a
> separate item.]
>
>
>
> I note the IETF has answered:
>
> “   As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are
>
>    anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods
>
>    proposed by the IETF to test.  The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the
>
>    RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen
>
>    issues that might arise as a result of other changes.
>
>
>
>    What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any
>
>    supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements
>
>    outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.”
>
>
>
> The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question.
>
>
>
> I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete.
>
>
>
> Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it:
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf
>
>
>
> Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a
> separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a
> dependency.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to
> point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification
> of the time required given the dependency.
>
>
>
> My apologies for not raising this earlier.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Narelle
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
> <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM
> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"
>
>
>
> Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted
> emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not
> mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already
> complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that
> we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this
> thread).
>
>
>
> I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> ---------------------------
>
>
>
> Dear IANAPLAN WG,
>
>
>
> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling <
> http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that
> included the following text:
>
>
>
> "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.”
>
>
>
> The ICG is therefore 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 implementation of these aspects? We
> understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your
> best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.
>
>
>
> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives
> (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much
> appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in
> June, that would be welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed
>
>
>
>>
>
>
> Dear CRISP team,
>
>
>
> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling <
> http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that
> included the following text:
>
>
>
> "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.”
>
>
>
> The ICG is therefore 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 implementation of these aspects? We
> understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your
> best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.
>
>
>
> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives
> (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much
> appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in
> June, that would be welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed
>
>
>
>>
>
>
> Dear CWG,
>
>
>
> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling <
> http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that
> included the following text:
>
>
>
> "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.”
>
>
>
> The ICG is therefore 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 proposal development? From start to finish,
> approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will
> need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these
> time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best
> estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates.
>
>
>
> If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG
> (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC,
> that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate
> to us later in June, that would be welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150525/b5ed33ad/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list