[Internal-cg] "Implementation"

Mohamed El Bashir mbashir at mbash.net
Tue May 26 17:33:49 UTC 2015


+ Kuo-We, i support the proposal to submit the request to ICANN as well.
We have been requesting ICANN to participate in the process and provide
their input/comments, their input is important to know and factor their
implementation time.

Regards,
Mohamed

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence.
> Alissa
>
> On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>


-- 
Kind Regards,
Mohamed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150526/40e50151/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list