[Internal-cg] "Implementation"

Wed May 27 05:58:57 UTC 2015

Kavouss,

sorry to having you missed on the call today

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Kavouss Arasteh 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:41 AM
To: Mohamed El Bashir 
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"

Dear Mohamed
We have A formal representative from the Board. Who actively participate in our discussion . We gave Bruce in CCWG who acts as Liaison between the Board and CCWG.
CCWG has never send any formal letter to the Board to ask how they think of the implementation. I do object to ask in a formal way any views from the Board in this regard.
Let us act independently . At later stage, once we received replies from OCs we may consider the necessity to seek views from the Bostd.  
regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 May 2015, at 19:33, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net> wrote:

  + 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 iPhone 

        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] 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

  _______________________________________________
  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/20150527/647a83df/attachment.html>