[Internal-cg] Our timeline
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed May 27 12:49:25 UTC 2015
Please note that there is no general understanding of the
I asked that a sentence be considered to indicate our understanding of that
term and let NTIA confirm or otherwise our understanding
2015-05-27 6:53 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>:
> Alissa, this looks like progress to me. Just one question below.
> On 22 May 2015, at 7:37, Alissa Cooper 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
> I’m not sure how the communities would “make edits” during this short
> period, or for what reason. I suppose this is suggested in case of
> conflicts identified, where the ICG may need to request clarifications or
> modifications from the communities? If so, then I’m not sure it is an
> “editing” process; it may be better described as a process of
> “consultation” between the IGC and community representatives, to identify
> solutions which would be included into the ICG’s plan, and subject to
> comment in the next step.
> Also I think this step is not just one of assessing the proposals, but it
> is in fact the assembly of the single ICG proposal, from those components.
> I would restate this step as follows:
> *3 weeks for us to assemble all three proposals together into a single
> plan, in consultation with communities if necessary regarding any
> interactions or conflicts
> *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
>> *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.
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg