[Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Fri Jun 19 12:30:37 UTC 2015

Thanks for the good thinking and initial drafting that went into this. 

My view is that Alternative 2 (explicitly tie the timeframe to the CCWG work and coordinate a response) is the better option. 
As you note, the response you have drafted seems to align more with Alternative 1. But a lot of the material in there can be (re)used as we prepare a response based on Alternative 2. I doubt whether CCWG chairs have taken the more global view of the timeline that we have put together, so the draft will come in handy as we move forward


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:24 PM
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling
> Hi,
> Alissa and myself spent some time starting to write a response to the inquiry
> from Strickling. You can see the initial draft below. When discussing the
> content we did though detect a few things which we do believe can change
> the response. Let me take them in random order.
> A. The question was related to when transition can happen, and that is not
> before a complete proposal has not only been submitted to NTIA, but also
> been implemented.
> B. The longest timeframe we have got is 3-4 months, but on top of this is an
> unknown quantity of time needed for various steps in the US Government
> for evaluation and final transition. If the last (unknown) steps takes say 3-4
> months as well, we talk about a 6-8 month timeframe.
> C. The timeline of CCWG Accountability is to be discussed Friday (i.e.
> tomorrow). The timeline indications we have seen talk about June-July 2016,
> and one can ask whether any of the OC proposals can be claimed to be
> implemented before CCWG Accountability is done.
> D. In reality, the question is not about detailed timeline, but rather in a
> broad view how long time is needed. And given the unknowns it is probably
> difficult to make estimations in shorter time units than 3 months, or maybe
> 6 month units.
> Based on the above, that we have got responses that required
> implementation steps in the proposals from the operational communities
> can be done within 3-4 months, that the CCWG Accountability have a
> timeline that indicate June-July 2016 (which is further away in time) we draw
> the conclusion that the CCWG Accountability is what will set the timeline,
> and because of that ICG have two alternatives:
> 1. To state we do believe ICG proposal can be implemented in 3-4 months
> plus time it takes for US Government (which if that also takes 3-4 months
> lead to 6-8 month timeframe).
> 2. Given the data we have, that CCWG is driving the timeline, we coordinate
> with CCWG Accountability and even though one letter was sent to ICG
> Chairs and one to CCWG Chairs, we send in one response, which is built
> upon mainly the timeline CCWG Accountability will discuss tomorrow, and
> we use the data ICG have received as indications that ICG will be faster than
> CCWG regarding implementation.
> When we stopped working today, Alissa and I where leaning towards
> alternative (2), although we (as you can see below) started writing on
> something according to alternative (1).
> Please advice.
>    Patrik & Alissa
> Lawrence E. Strickling
> Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information United States
> Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230
> Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling:
> Thank you for your letter concerning the IANA stewardship transition. As
> noted in your letter, there are multiple steps remaining before the transition
> will be complete: the finalization of the transition proposal, the U.S.
> Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and the implementation of the
> work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the transition.
> This letter provides input about the first and last of these steps.
> The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number resources and
> protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just received
> the domain names proposal from the CWG. The finalization steps that
> remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the
> ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three
> components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly
> further work in the operational communities depending on the results of the
> assessments and public comment analysis. These steps are detailed in the
> attached timeline. The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be
> concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to the ICANN
> Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October.
> The ICG considers the attached timeline to be optimistic. The timeline may
> be extended if additional time is needed for community work or public
> comment analysis, or if the ICG determines that an additional public
> comment period is necessary.
> We inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board
> concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are
> included at the end of this letter. Taken together, the responses indicate
> that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this time
> relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require 3-4 months. Many of
> the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in
> parallel and may be prepared before the transition is complete, while for
> other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at present.
> Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum 3-4 months will be
> required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved by the
> U.S. government.
> The IETF community has indicated that it is prepared to transition now. It is
> possible that as further details concerning Post-Transition IANA (PTI) become
> available, more IETF community work and agreement may be required.
> The CRISP team and the RIRs indicated that the numbers community will be
> prepared to transition by September 30, 2015. Some elements described in
> the numbers community proposal, such as appointees to the Review
> Committee, may not be finalized by that time, but these are not considered
> prerequisites for the transition.
> The CWG indicated that the work necessary to incorporate the PTI may
> require 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple
> iterations of relevant documentation. The time needed to implement other
> aspects of the CWG proposal, including relevant ICANN bylaws changes, is
> uncertain. [Insert pointer to CCWG response to NTIA here?]
> The ICANN Board's views concerning implementation time frames are
> consistent with these indications from the operational communities. The
> Board believes the IETF and RIR proposals could be implemented in a matter
> several of weeks, that the PTI implementation may take several months, and
> that the time required to implement the CCWG Accountability work items is
> uncertain.
> Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take
> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the IANA
> department in some way, and will therefore require time and attention from
> the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be done in
> parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than other
> activities.

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list