[CRISP-TEAM] [Feedback requested] Discussions on delaying CCWG Timelines

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi Andrei,


Thank you for this feedback. Indeed, I agree that it would be more appropriate to submit comment as ASO, and it is already done.
ASO will be coordinating about the timelines, including feedback on substance of the discussions.

The idea behind my suggestion on the CRISP Team is along the lines of what did in ICANN54, we comment about the CCWG impact on the timelines of the wider stewardship transition process, which affects the timelines for the IANA stewardship transition including the number proposal. Below is a distinction I have in mind.

 ASO  : Comment to the CCWG as its member, including substance. Concrete coordination about the timeline in CCWG will be made through ASO.
 CRSIP: If there are any timelines discusses in the CCWG which affects the IANA transition timelines, we may express a statement/comment 


To quote from Jordan Carter's post, he mentions about the need of the other operational communities.

 http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/008860.html

> ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change
> the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot
> imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a
> deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)

It would be nice if we can express as the CRISP Team that his observation is correct, and to confirm that there are other communities outside ICANN, who cares about the CCWG timelines and gets affected.
That was the idea behind it.

Does this additional background change your opinion or do you still feel the same?
(If you still feel the same, fair enough and I understand)

Any comments from the others?



Izumi

On 2015/12/18 0:21, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
> 
> I agree that it is important to put some pressure on the CCWG so the
> transition can happen in a timely manner. At the same time it seems more
> appropriate to me if such pressure comes from the ASO, who represents
> the number community in ICANN.
> 
> I am not sure the CRISP team can claim to be representatives of the
> numbers community (as opposed to be representing the numbers proposal).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andrei
> 
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 17/12/15 15:20:
>> CRISP Team,
>>
>>
>> This is to share that the CCWG is yet again discussing delay its timelines.
>>
>> Since this would affect the overall transition process, it may be worth expressing comment as the CRISP Team as representatives of the numbers community, as we did during ICANN54.
>>
>>
>> Before doing so, I suggest to share with the ASO, to be in sync. I am happy to coordinate unless you have any concerns.
>> In parallel, I suggest to prepare a draft text (we may end up not needing it if comment from the ASO is sufficient but would be good to be prepared).
>>
>>
>> I welcome your feedback in the coming 24 hours on:
>>
>> 1) Whether you agree the CRISP Team to express comment on the CCWG timeline, in considering to incorporate ICANN Board comment
>>    If no concerns expressed I interpret this as consent, to express comment from the CRISP Team
>>
>> 2) Draft comment (at the end of this mail)
>>    I don't know if I should sign my name as usual, being the ASO liaison in the CCWG as well.
>>    If there is no COI you see, I will sign my name but please raise it if you have any concerns. 
>>
>>
>> Background:
>>
>>  - This based on the comment submitted from the ICANN Board to the third version of the proposal.
>>    It is perceived that:
>>    If the CCWG is required to reflect all of the suggested changes by the Board, it would need another round of public comments, as some of the suggested changes could be fundamental.
>>    (e.g, removal of certain text in the Mission from the Bylaws, the IANA budget rejection power to be given to the operational communities)
>>
>>  - This post from Jordan Carter on the CCWG ML may give you an overview of the situation.
>>     http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/008860.html
>>
>>    He is aware of the needs of the numbers and protocols communities for the timelines.
>>    He has posted questions on how the CCWG should move forward, based on the current situation.
>>    
>>    - accepts fundamental changes and the change to the schedule involved OR
>>    - rejects fundamental changes, and takes the risk of the Board's comment it may oppose those changes coming true
>>
>>    - do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments? OR
>>    - do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
>>
>> Putting on the hat as an ASO liaison in the CCWG, I have shared the comment below to the CCWG:
>>  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/008924.html
>>
>>
>> Draft Comment:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear CCWG,
>>
>>
>> The CRISP Team would like to express our comment about the discussions on the CCWG about the timelines, in incorporating comment from the ICANN Board:
>>
>>  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/008860.html
>>  
>> As it has been well stated by some CCWG members, the CCWG timeline does not only affect the names community but has wider implications to the IANA Stewardship transition process and its timelines.
>>
>> The CRISP Team would like to emphasise our strong concerns on extension of the CCWG timeline if it will compromise the NTIA timelines on the IANA stewardship transition.
>>
>> We support the feedback of the ASO discussions, shared on the CCWG list, as a helpful way forward : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/008924.html
>>
>> We thank the CCWG in considering the timelines with acknowledgement of the needs of the other operational communities.
>>
>> We observe tremendous efforts have been made by the CCWG in addressing the challenges which arise through the process and finding a way forward, without affecting the transition timelines.
>> Now that is is very close to the end of the process in finalising its proposal, we trust the CCWG complete its work, maintaining to keep in line with overall the transition timelines.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Izumi Okutani 
>> on behalf of the CRISP Team
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>