[Internal-cg] Our timeline
alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Jun 9 18:54:06 UTC 2015
Some responses inline.
On Jun 8, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> Sorry, I sort of missed this discussion...
> I agree with Paul that we do need to be realistic about timescales - ours and the operational communities'. This draft does not.
> In particular, as we go into the drafting phase, we probably need to think about resources. (The team supporting the CWG-Names Functions is large, supporting the very high number of conference calls and drafting. I don't think that we will be quite this intense, but we need to think carefully about what we need to produce and how we will do it.)
I’m not sure exactly what “drafting” you mean, but the general topic of managing the public comment period is on our agenda for the F2F meeting. The secretariat has paid close attention to the process in the CWG and CCWG. I agree that we need to make sure everyone is ready and knows what to do to support the proposal finalization.
> However, I have one very significant concern - the chart shows only one consultation. I am not convinced that that is enough, nor that it is reasonable to reduce the number of consultation periods. (And this is a point I have made a number of times now. No one has said I'm wrong, but the second comment period never makes it back into the timeline.) We might be lucky and little comes out of the comments period that leads to significant new material or re-thinking. As a pessimist at heart, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.
I would have to check the minutes, but my recollection of our discussion of TimelineGraphic-v9 <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Timeline?preview=TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx> was that folks preferred to strive for something more along the lines of the optimized timeline. That is why TimelineGraphic-v10 reflects the single comment period. Then the conclusion of the group on the last call was that we should add a note to explain that the timeline might be extended based on a variety of contingencies, including the need for a second public comment period. So that is now reflected in TimeGraphic-v11 <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Timeline?preview=TimelineGraphic-v11.xlsx>, as Joe pointed out.
> That doesn't mean that we have nothing in Dublin. But it does mean that we could be using a re-draft for discussions and an opportunity to do any fine tuning with the OCs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
> Sent: 27 May 2015 05:54
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Our timeline
> 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
>> 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 holidays)
>> *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