[council] FW: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

Please see below for an update on the CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship
Transition proposal on naming related functions and the relationship with
the work of the ICG.

 

Thanks.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01
To: 'alissa@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'mbashir@xxxxxxxxx'; 'Patrik Falstrom -'
Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland@xxxxxxx); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx';
'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -';
'mnuduma@xxxxxxxxx'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx); 'Xiaodong
Lee:'; 'keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming
related functions and the work of the ICG
Importance: High

 

Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed,

 

We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as
co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the
Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship
Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on
the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines
set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for
Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014.

 

We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition
process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the
process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming community.
At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and the SSAC came
together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter for what will
become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to be able to
finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter has been
approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance with its own
rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as members and
observers, again according to each SO and AC's rules and procedures. In
addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG and is actively
considering the invitation. With the establishment of the CWG, we expect to
be able to provide a proposal from the naming community.

 

While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement of
such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is
necessarily time consuming.  Even though many of the chartering SO/AC's have
yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members, we
have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG meeting
right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los Angeles.
After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another opportunity to meet
face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not anticipate that the
CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without at least one such
face to face meeting and potentially a public consultation of the community.
Please also be aware  that before a proposal could be formally transmitted
to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the chartering SO/AC's to approve
it through their respective processes.  

 

Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time and
energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some would
say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for formal
proposals set out in the ICG's RFP. We do hope that shortly upon formation
of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed timetable. It
follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the RFP or request
any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but hopefully you are
willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may have following its
formation.

 

The CWG's charter provides for a very open process, including no limitations
on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our meetings. We have no
doubt that the naming community members on the ICG will actively monitor the
work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular updates on our progress.
Should you have any questions or require further clarification, we would be
pleased hear from you and to respond accordingly. 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland

Co-Chairs

Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship
transition proposal