mnuduma at yahoo.com
Tue May 26 12:08:11 UTC 2015
All,I can see Kavouss' point of view, since ICG is expected to submit the final proposal to NTIA through ICANN, ICG may have little or no control over what ICANN Board and Staff will do thereafter.I assume the input from OCs would factor in the actions to be taken by ICANN in implementing their recommendations/proposals.
I would also think that the best answers to the questions would be gathered from the OCs whose proposals ICG is coordinating and in line with RFP we earlier issued.
The ICANN Board Liaison to ICG is free to ask same questions to his community who may have feed the OCs with its actions regarding implementation processes, and bring back information to the ICG.
To be clear, my point is that whatever input ICANN would have regarding the implementation process would be indirectly submitted to the ICG through the OCs.Mary Uduma
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:40 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
Although ICANN implementation time I think should be included in the timeline each OC have in their proposal, and that we have requested ICANN and everyone else to participate in the processes each OC have defined, I do think we absolutely should recognize the wishes by Kuo-Wei just like I would suggest we listen to requests any ICG member might have regarding ICG interaction with whoever the ICG member is appointed by or represent (directly, explicitly or indirectly, implicitly). We are not the ones that should prescribe how interactions and communication work in each community we need information from, and if there is a request for outreach -- which I interpret this as -- I think we should reach out.
Specifically in this case where I see ICG have already reached consensus on the specific role the by ICANN appointed members have.
So, yes, I am [speaking personally] also supporting reaching out, as a way to ensure whatever time ICANN need is counted in whatever calculations are made by the OC's, by us etc.
On 26 May 2015, at 6:06, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
> I support Kuo-Wei's point/request below. ICANN staff and board will have various implementation responsibilities and it would be very useful to receive their input.
> On May 25, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei <kuoweiwu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN will have a role in the implementation together with the respective operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy to input their view for ICG to consider.
>> Kuo Wu
>>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道：
>>> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation.
>>> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding?
>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?"
>>> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS?
>>>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there
>>>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational
>>>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
>>>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities
>>>>>> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA
>>>>>> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start
>>>>>> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your
>>>>>> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
>>>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT".
>>>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-(
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg