[Internal-cg] "Implementation"

Tue May 26 17:05:53 UTC 2015

Hi Narelle,

I think you are reading things correctly, but we can also take account of present circumstances. It has been more than four months since we received the proposals from the IETF and RIRs, so it seems appropriate to ask for updated information. We also know that some activities have taken place since then (SLA negotiations) that may factor into update time frame estimates.

I think we could add a mention of the RFP as a new third sentence in this paragraph:

"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 asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.”

Alissa

On May 24, 2015, at 11:26 PM, 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] 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150526/3e0f2b38/attachment.html>