[Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu May 14 11:35:46 UTC 2015
In the second paragraph of the NTIA LETTER, IT IS STATED
"* ......including the community views as to how long it will take to
finalize the transition plan and IMPLEMENT IT after it approved "*
The report of the ICG,among other things mainly depends on the report from
CWG which is still in commenting period..
That report ,once finalized is also depends on the activities of CCWG for
work stream 1 which is also in public comment period.
At the last CCWG CALL, THE TIME LINE FOR THE COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF WORK STREAM 1 was envisaged to be not earlier than July 2016.
Moreover, we do not yet know the precise timeline for the completion of CWG
REPORT and the exact time that such report will be sent to ICG for review.
Taking into account the speific question of NTIA "*how long it will take to
finalize the transition plan and IMPLEMENT IT after it approved "* ,ICG
needs to discuss and provide its answer, no doubt after the ICANN 53
meeting during which the f2f meeting of ICG will take place.
In view of the above, we should have a fairly conservative time line for
discussion at our next call as well as f2f meeting
As usual, some ICG colleagues are in hurry to send the ICG prioposal to
I draw the attention of the chair and the managemnet team as well as all
distinguished and respectful ciolleagues of ,.
2015-05-14 13:13 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:
> Dear Alissa ..
> Apologies for the late reply ..
> Comments inline below ..
> Kind Regards
> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:58 PM
> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA
> Stewardship Transition
> I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we
> received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the
> transition process.
> First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent
> have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best
> way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their
> own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for
> incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we
> may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my
> suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we
> can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a
> timely fashion.
> [MI]: Agree ..
> Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is
> something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter,
> there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition:
> 1. Finalization of the transition proposal.
> 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal.
> 3. Implementation of the proposal.
> The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1.
> The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering
> their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities
> are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a
> couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed
> across affected and interested parts of the USG.
> [MI]: Agree .. but I would also add a ‘step 0’ which is official
> submission of the names proposal to the ICG .. Having said that, do we know
> that the CWG will be able to submit their final final names proposal while
> the CCWG Stream1 proposal is still under discussion, or should we seek a
> confirmation or further guidance on that?
> The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if
> we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to
> conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for
> forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and
> in Dropbox <
> is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this.
> [MI]: Thanks for your efforts in compiling this .. My memory fails me,
> have we agreed on one or two public comment periods, at the end of the
> Singapore meeting?
> If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require
> further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip
> beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of
> course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so
> by that time we will have more current information about the status of the
> names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own
> public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we
> likely want to reflect in our response.
> [MI]: Fair Enough ..
> We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their
> timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently
> released for public comment <
> It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that
> both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around
> ICANN 54.
> [MI]: Good .. Though, as highlighted above, I’m not sure whether the shift
> between the timelines of CWG & CCWG would affect the submission date of the
> final proposal of the CWG, and consequently the ICG timeline ..
> I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the
> list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in
> Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.
> Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline:
> - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on
> the full combined proposal.
> - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting
> during the second week of September.
> - ICANN 54 is October 18-22.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg