[Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe Submit

Sat Jan 16 07:12:41 UTC 2016

Thanks JJS,

I agree to your conclusion. I don't think it's a question of ICG remit 
rather than responsibility to provide a complete plan timely.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Joseph Alhadeff
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe 
Submit

Building on all the comments seen so far, I've written up this résumé for my 
own sake, and thought you might find it useful:

A/ In writing to CWG, CCWG and Board (and perhaps NTIA), would ICG exceed 
its remit?

Our Charter states "The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place 
alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. 
While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is 
central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements 
required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely 
accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, 
the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should 
appropriately coordinate their work."

While it is clear that ICG was set up primarily to put together a Transition 
Plan with contributions from our communities, we cannot ignore the 2 
calendar constraints for Transition itself: the termination of the current 
IANA contract in September 2016, and the US elections shortly after. The 
NTIA has made known that once it received our completed Plan, it would take 
another 6 to 9 months to clear all the hurdles, before Transition can be 
finally validated. And implementing Transition would take several months 
after that.

My point is this: whereas our role is mainly technical, it is also our duty 
to help make Transition actually happen. In addition to the positive 
attitude the communities we represent within ICG have consistently shown 
towards the principle of Transition, this principle was also widely 
supported in the public comments we received, analyzed and published.

B/ Send a message expressing concern and suggesting a compromise be reached, 
or just wait?

Waiting would provide the comfort of sticking to our remit in a narrow, 
literal sense.

My proposal during our call last night, building on suggestions by Jari and 
others, was to send a message to the parties engaged in what our Charter 
calls "alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN 
accountability".

Having taken on board the email exchange after last night's meeting, I no 
longer suggest sending our incomplete Plan as a stand-alone contribution. 
Our message to CCWG, CWG and ICANN Board (copied to NTIA) could include:
- a polite reminder of the calendar constraints, working backwards from the 
termination of the IANA contract and the time necessary for NTIA and other 
authorities in Washington to process our Plan;
- in the interests of making Transition actually happen, ICG respectfully 
calls upon the parties to build a compromise to be included in our 
Transition Plan, so that the latter may be forwarded to the NTIA via the 
ICANN Board at the earliest convenient time.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.

----- Mail original -----
De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Jeudi 14 Janvier 2016 12:45:50
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe 
Submit

While all of us share the concern of the timeframe slipping, we do not
have a consensus on the appropriateness of ICG sending a letter; I too
find it outside of our remit.  Perhaps each of the communities we
represent, if so inclined, should draft those letters as a way for the
participants to the negotiation to be reminded of the importance of
timely conclusion.

Joe

On 1/14/2016 3:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> I understand this being independent from the question whether we
> should send a note to CCWG (and board (and NTIA)) - as Jari suggested
> - appealing for a timely compromise solution.
>
> I'm supporting this idea which would also signal that we're not just
> waiting (or even worse being in "sleeping mode") rather than closely
> following the debate and that ICG is deeply interested in the overall
> success of the transition.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
> thatwe Submit
>
> OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we
> continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record
> that we considered alternatives.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago
>> to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does
>> and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a
>> further update to its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the
>> CWG about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a
>> very precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg
>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
>>> for it.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>>> I fully agree with Martin.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
>>>> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
>>>> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>>> thatwe Submit
>>>>
>>>> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
>>>> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
>>>> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
>>>> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.
>>>> I am
>>>> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
>>>> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
>>>> advantage in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Daniel Karrenberg
>>>> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
>>>> that we
>>>> Submit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
>>>> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
>>>> transmission to NTIA.
>>>>
>>>> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
>>>> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did
>>>> submit.
>>>>
>>>> Reasons:
>>>>
>>>> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
>>>> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears
>>>> to be
>>>> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG
>>>> submits
>>>> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
>>>> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
>>>> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
>>>> the perception of partial agreement and success.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
>>>> discussion about our work product.
>>>>
>>>> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
>>>> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
>>>> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
>>>> not just sit and wait.
>>>>
>>>> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would
>>>> consider to
>>>> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they
>>>> agree
>>>> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question
>>>> moot
>>>> until the situation changes again.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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