[Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Wed Oct 21 10:26:32 UTC 2015


On 21 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in implementation (if any).
>>
>> My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight role, but an important one nevertheless.
>>
>> I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) which would be freshly established by the OCs.
>
> I don’t see this as a single working group populated by OC people. The OCs already have their own people and teams who are handling the various different implementation issues, and it’s not all the same people handling the different issues, so I think it would be a mistake to task all the handling of implementation to a single group. For example, the CWG has Design Team O working on PTI budget issues. This is all already proceeding in a distributed fashion and we should let it continue that way in my opinion.

I agree 100%.  

>
> The one exception to this might be if there is a desire to have a centralized progress reporting mechanism for all of the implementation tasks. That would probably be easier if it had a single owner and all of the OCs and ICANN could provide input into it. Not clear to me whether or not that is needed since each OC could maintain its own progress reporting. But if people think it is needed then it may be sensible for it to have a single owner.

That’s one of the lightweight functions - progress reporting.  But also as I mentioned, the need to assist IANA with its management of a long list of implementation steps that they will otherwise need to manage alone.  This is where cross-community coordination may be needed, though again it is a lightweight function.  To be frank, a simple mailing list might do it, but I have assumed that a little (not much) more formality may be called for.

Paul.



>
> Alissa
>
>> However I do believe that it is within the ICG’s mandate to recommend such a mechanism, as a legitimate part of the plan itself.  It may still then be up to the OCs to agree, then to assign their reps to the group and work out the finer details of its operations.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
>> http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3582 bytes
Desc: S/MIME digital signature
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151021/9690138e/attachment.p7s>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list