[Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc

Subrenat, Jean-Jacques jjs at dyalog.net
Wed Oct 21 10:34:44 UTC 2015


Alissa & All,

if there was any notion that only some parts of the ICG would be involved, I would report this to the ALAC.

Allow me to repeat the points I've made on several occasions:
- NTIA gave a task to the whole ICG, so any continuation concerns all the communities represented in the ICG;
- we have a Charter, which must be respected; any change would require a new Charter, which my community would not accept, I think.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Mercredi 21 Octobre 2015 11:04:42
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc

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.

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.

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


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



More information about the Internal-cg mailing list