IANA Functions Stewardship Transition: Difference between revisions

(15 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)

Line 115:

At [[ICANN 51]], the ICG met with the ALAC and GAC, as well as holding a public engagement session for the entire community.<ref name="icgmtgs" /> The ALAC and GAC meetings featured presentations from ICG members regarding the mission of the ICG, community development of proposals, and expectations and timelines regarding community participation.<ref>[https://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-atlarge-iana-stewardship/presentation-icg-14oct14-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - ICANN 51 ICG-ALAC Meeting Presentation Deck], October 14, 2014</ref> The public session featured a similar presentation at the beginning, with many questions being fielded from the community.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-icg-community/transcript-icg-community-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Transcript, ICG Community Session], October 16, 2014</ref>

At the Public Forum, the twin topics of IANA transition and ICANN Accountability were again first on the agenda for public comment.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-public-forum/transcript-public-forum-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Public Forum Transcript], October 16, 2014</ref> At the board meeting following the forum, the board approved a resolution setting out the procedures in the event that the board disagreed with a recommendation from the [[Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability]].<ref name="51bmtg">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-board/transcript-board-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Transcript, Board Meeting], October 16, 2014</ref> The procedure involved options for dialogue and refinement around any recommendation that the board considered to be against the global public interest.<ref name="51bmtg" /> Upon passage of the resolution, Bruce Tonkin noted:

At the Public Forum, the twin topics of IANA transition and ICANN Accountability were again first on the agenda for public comment.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-public-forum/transcript-public-forum-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Public Forum Transcript], October 16, 2014</ref> At the board meeting following the forum, the board approved a resolution setting out the procedures in the event that the board disagreed with a recommendation from the [[Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability]].<ref name="51bmtg">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-board/transcript-board-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Transcript, Board Meeting], October 16, 2014</ref> The procedure involved options for dialogue and refinement around any recommendation that the board considered to be against the global public interest.<ref name="51bmtg" /> Upon passage of the resolution, Bruce Tonkin noted:

<blockquote>One other question we've received this week is regarding how we would handle the output from the IANA transition coordination group. What we will do now that we passed this resolution, is we will then send this proposed approach to that coordination group for their consideration. And hopefully we'll be able to come up with a similar mechanism to, again, provide certainty in how we will be handling that.<ref name="51bmtg" /></blockquote> The comment was the subject of discussion in the ICG's meeting the following day.<ref name="51icg">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Transcript, ICG Meeting], October 17, 2014</ref>

Line 161:

===ICG Meeting===

The ICG held ~~a two-day meeting~~ at ICANN 53, addressing a number of topics. ~~Top~~ of the agenda was a preliminary examination of the CWG-Stewardship proposal, which, although it had not been officially transmitted to the ICG, was in the final stages of its development.<ref name="icg53agenda">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg/agenda-icg-18jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - ICG Meeting Agenda], June 15-16, 2015</ref> Patrik Faltstrom led the session, starting with an overview of the SSAC's approach to evaluating the CWG-Stewardship proposal.<ref name="icg53day1">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg/transcript-icg-18jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, ICG Meeting #5 Day 1], June 15-16, 2015</ref>

The ICG held meetings over three days at ICANN 53, addressing a number of topics. At the meeting in the lead-up to conference programming, the top of the agenda was a preliminary examination of the CWG-Stewardship proposal, which, although it had not been officially transmitted to the ICG, was in the final stages of its development.<ref name="icg53agenda">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg/agenda-icg-18jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - ICG Meeting Agenda], June 18-19, 2015</ref> Patrik Faltstrom led the session, starting with an overview of the SSAC's approach to evaluating the CWG-Stewardship proposal.<ref name="icg53day1">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg/transcript-icg-18jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, ICG Meeting #5 Day 1], June 18-19, 2015</ref>

~~==July 2015 -~~ A ~~Full Set of Proposals==~~

A week later, on June 25, the closing meeting opened with news that the CWG-Stewardship proposal had received approvals from all of the chartering organizations.<ref name="53close">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg-working/transcript-icg-working-25jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, ICG Working Session, June 25, 2015</ref> The goal of the ICG was to deliver a consolidated proposal to the board around the time of ICANN 54 in Dublin.<ref name="53close" />

~~The~~ CWG-Stewardship ~~working group submitted its final draft for approval by~~ the chartering organizations in June, ~~and after approval from all~~ of ~~those organizations, passed its~~ proposal ~~on behalf of the naming operational community~~ to the ~~ICG at~~ the ~~end~~ of ~~the month~~.

==~~August~~ 2015: NTIA Extends IANA Functions Contract for One Year==

==July 2015 - Drafting a Consolidated Proposal==

The CWG-Stewardship working group submitted its final draft for approval by the chartering organizations in June, and after approval from all of those organizations, passed its proposal on behalf of the naming operational community to the ICG at the end of the month. At its teleconference on July 8, 2015, the ICG began the work of assessing the proposal from the names community. There was broad consensus among those who had volunteered to read and present assessments that the proposal's dependencies on the conclusion of Work Stream One elements in the CCWG-Accountability work track rendered the proposal "incomplete," although the implications of that judgement were a matter of some debate.<ref name="july8call">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-08jul15-en.pdf ICG Meeting Archive - Transcript, ICG Call #19], July 8, 2015</ref> Some members of the ICG thought that the consolidated proposal would not yet be ready for a public comment process, because of the dependencies that existed between the CWG-Stewardship's proposal and the work of the CCWG-Accountability. Others thought that the dependencies could be stipulated as known, and that between close work and communication with the the two working groups, and specificity of expectations regarding the comment period, the ICG could publish a consolidated proposal for comment even if work remained open. There were other issues still pending within the report, including the disposition of the IANA trademarks, website, and domain name.<ref name="july8call" /> The group also discussed some objections to the proposal that had been raised by the community, either through the Stewardship Transition forum or the listserv.<ref name="july8call" /> The ICG also discussed plans for public and press outreach as their work to present a consolidated proposal ramped up.<ref name="july8call" />

Two weeks later, the twentieth ICG teleconference revealed substantial progress toward a consolidated proposal.<ref name="july15call">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-15jul15-en.pdf ICG Meeting Archive - Transcript, ICG Call #20], July 15, 2015</ref> Alissa Cooper detailed the plan to deal with accountability issues:

<blockquote>Here in accountability there were a few different topics raised. I think the one that got the most attention was the fact that there are dependencies on the work of the CCWG. I think we have a well‐documented plan as to how these will be handled.<br />

Just to recap what the plan is, when we put the transition proposal out for public comment we will make it very clear that there’s a parallel process that is developing the accountability mechanisms in the CCWG and that there are dependencies between the names proposal and the outcome of CCWG work stream 1. We will point people to the public comment process that is to occur on the accountability side to make sure that everyone understands what it is and that it’s available to them. Once the CCWG work has concluded and the final accountability proposal has been sent to the SOs and ACs for approval, we will seek confirmation from the CWG that all of their requirements have been met. At that point, depending on what they say back to us, we can make our final determination about accountability, but we can’t really do it before then for the names piece because we are awaiting the CCWG. That’s the plan. I think people kind of highlighted that there’s the dependency, but we do have a plan for how we will assess later.<ref name="july15call" /></blockquote>

The meeting closed with an intention to have a completed consolidated proposal ready to publish for public comment by the end of the month.<ref name="july15call" /> On the July 29th call, that goal had largely been met.<ref name="july29call">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-29jul15-en.pdf ICG Meeting Archive - Transcript, ICG Call #21], July 29, 2015</ref> After steering the group through final edits and changes to the proposal documents, Cooper stated that the team would have a day to review fresh drafts via the listserv, after which any final edits would be completed and the proposal published for public comment on July 31.<ref name="july29call" /> Cooper thanked everyone for their hard work.

==Autumn 2015 - Public Comment and NTIA Action==

The public comment period for the ICG proposal documents opened on July 31, 2015. The ICG posted the call for public comment on their website, ianacg.org<ref>ianacg.org is a WordPress installation that appears to be missing a needed plug-in as of July 2021. Files stored on the site are still accessible, and interested readers can find an archived version of the site from December 2020 on the Internet Archive's [https://web.archive.org/web/20201201013454/https://www.ianacg.org/ Wayback Machine]</ref>. The combined proposal received 157 comments.<ref name="combopc">[https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf ICG Archive - Summary of Public Comments (PDF)]</ref> Public comments were largely positive - the ICG characterized nearly two-thirds of the comments received as "supportive" or expressing "qualified support."<ref name="combopc" /> Because 15% of the comments were designated as "position unclear or not specific" to the proposal, approximately 75% of the salient comments were supportive or expressed qualified support.

The ICG identified six major themes in the objections to the proposal:

* Objections related to the relinquishment of, or transfer of jurisdiction over the NTIA's stewardship role;

* Concerns about the appropriateness and operational readiness of the [[PTI]];

* Concerns regarding [[root zone management]] (RZM) issues;

* The impact of dependencies on the overall proposal;

* Issues connected with the administration of ccTLDs; and

* Compatibility and interoperability of the proposals as combined.

Issues raised in comments were catalogued and examined by teams of ICG members. Issues were dealt with in one of three ways:

* In cases where an issue was already agreed but was still unclear to the community, the issue was added to the executive summary or the ICG's FAQ so that the description of the issue, deliberations, and resolution were more readily accessible and plain;

* In cases where an issue required review, it was forwarded to the relevant operating community for evaluation and discussion. Operating communities responded with information and revisions for either the executive summary of the proposal, or for inclusion in that OC's transition proposal;

* In cases where the issue raised was a fundamental issue (for example, opposition to the transition in general) or had been discussed, investigated, and settled to the satisfaction of the relevant operating committee, no further action was taken, except that in some circumstances the issue was forwarded to relevant OC for their own evaluation.

===NTIA Extends IANA Functions Contract for One Year===

On August 17, 2017, the NTIA announced its decision to extend the IANA functions contract with ICANN for one year.<ref name="ntiaextend">[https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition NTIA Blog - An Update on the IANA Transition], August 17, 2015</ref> In his message to the community, Larry Strickling wrote:

<blockquote>This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice<ref>[www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_notice_08102015.pdf Federal Register - IANA Stewardship Transition Consolidated Proposal and ICANN Accountability Enhancements: Request for Comments], August 10, 2015</ref>, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals.<ref name="ntiaextend" /></blockquote>

===GAO Report on Evaluation of Transition Proposal===

In September 2015, the GAO publicly released GAO-15-642, "Structured Evaluation Could Help Assess Proposed Transition of Key Domain Name and Other Technical Functions."<ref name="gao">[https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-642 GAO.gov - GAO-15-642], published August 19, 2015; publicly released September 18, 2015</ref> The report was focused on the IANA Transition and the NTIA's role of evaluating and approving the combined transition proposal. In the course of its study, the GAO reviewed documents regarding from ICANN, the ICG, and the working groups devoted to aspects of the transition, interviewed representatives of ten stakeholder federal agencies and thirty-one non-federal agency stakeholders, and interviewed technical experts, including ICANN staff.<ref name="gao" /> The report concluded that NTIA should review relevant evaluation frameworks, such as ISO quality management principles, and adopt or adapt elements of those frameworks in its review of the IANA transition proposal.<ref name="gao" /> The GAO found broad support for the transition during its interview process.<ref name="gao" /> Upon receipt of the report, the Department of Commerce concurred with the recommendation and confirmed that "[a]s part of its evaluation, NTIA will use relevant frameworks suggested by the U.S. GAO to guide its assessment of the final proposal against core goals."<ref name="gao" />

===CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal 2 and Public Comments===

In their last call before their in-person meeting at ICANN 54, the ICG discussed some serious divisions of opinions regarding the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1's second draft proposal. The working group had published their second draft report<ref name="acct2report">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stream-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - CCWG-Accountability Proposal], Draft 2, Work Stream 1, August 3, 2015</ref> for public comment in August.<ref name="acct2pc">[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en ICANN Public Comment Archive - CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)], August 3 - September 12, 2015</ref> The report received multiple public comments, including a lengthy response and alternative proposal from the ICANN Board.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html ICANN Listserv Archive - ICANN Board Submission of Supplementary and Final Comments], September 11, 2015</ref> The principle sticking point between the board and the working group was the mechanism for community empowerment. [[Paul Wilson]] commented on the call about his perception of the severity of the potential delay:

<blockquote>I think our mission is threatened by what’s going on there. We’re in a potential position of having this entire work effort essentially wasted because a delay for another several years takes us into a completely different environment where this effort that we’ve done may just need to be restarted completely.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-08oct15-en.pdf ICG Meeting Archive - Transcript, ICG Call #24], October 8, 2015</ref></blockquote>

===ICANN 54===

[[ICANN 54]] in Dublin featured an in-person meeting of the ICG, as well as considerable work and discussion regarding public comments on the second draft proposal of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1. [[Ira Magaziner]] was again invited to speak on transition perspectives, along with a panel of congressional staffers and attorneys.<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/sun-transition-perspectives ICANN 54 Archive - Transition Perspectives: From an Internet Pioneer and the U.S. Congress], October 18, 2015</ref> Magaziner's comments focused on the momentum that had been gained in the IANA stewardship transition:

<blockquote>[T]here has been a bottoms-up process with comments, with lots of people involved and I think it's 98, 99% of the way there now to achieving a consensus.<br />

I think over the coming days, some people who have strongly felt positions, particularly on the accountability issues and so on, are going to have to be willing to modify those positions some. But I think if the history of the consensus process holds, they'll do so; and we'll get a common proposal that I hope will come in a matter of days but certainly not too much into the future. And then at that point, the community will write up a good cogent document that it can present to the U.S. government to hopefully follow through in the transition. And the gentlemen who will be coming up to the stage after me will talk a bit about the process from there.<br />

But I'm very hopeful that the consensus is just about there. I congratulate the committee chairs and others who have worked on this. It has been a monumental job to navigate all of this through and get it to this point of consensus. And I think they will finish the job in the coming days. And I'm very optimistic about that.<br />

I'm also optimistic -- I had a very brief chance to meet with some of the staffs. And I'm also optimistic that there is a bipartisan spirit in the U.S. Congress about this. And I'm hopeful that it will avoid the kind of politics that are swirling around and that this will be able to follow through on its merits.<ref name="54tptranscript">[https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/sun-transition-perspectives/transcript-transition-perspectives-18oct15-en ICANN 54 Archive - Transcript: Transition Perspectives], October 18, 2015</ref></blockquote>

The panel of individuals from Congress was equally positive about the prospects for success. Discussing the transition proposal thus far, the members of both Senate and House committees with oversight over NTIA expressed appreciation for the process and reinforced the bipartisan support for a strong transition proposal.<ref name="54tptranscript" />

==Videos==

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 At [[ICANN 51]], the ICG met with the ALAC and GAC, as well as holding a public engagement session for the entire community.<ref name="icgmtgs" /> The ALAC and GAC meetings featured presentations from ICG members regarding the mission of the ICG, community development of proposals, and expectations and timelines regarding community participation.<ref>[https://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-atlarge-iana-stewardship/presentation-icg-14oct14-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - ICANN 51 ICG-ALAC Meeting Presentation Deck], October 14, 2014</ref> The public session featured a similar presentation at the beginning, with many questions being fielded from the community.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-icg-community/transcript-icg-community-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Transcript, ICG Community Session], October 16, 2014</ref>
-At the Public Forum, the twin topics of IANA transition and ICANN Accountability were again first on the agenda for public comment.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-public-forum/transcript-public-forum-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Public Forum Transcript], October 16, 2014</ref> At the board meeting following the forum, the board approved a resolution setting out the procedures in the event that the board disagreed with a recommendation from the [[Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability]].<ref name="51bmtg">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-board/transcript-board-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Transcript, Board Meeting], October 16, 2014</ref> The procedure involved options for dialogue and refinement around any recommendation that the board considered to be against the global public interest.<ref name="51bmtg" /> Upon passage of the resolution, Bruce Tonkin noted:
+At the Public Forum, the twin topics of IANA transition and ICANN Accountability were again first on the agenda for public comment.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-public-forum/transcript-public-forum-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Public Forum Transcript], October 16, 2014</ref> At the board meeting following the forum, the board approved a resolution setting out the procedures in the event that the board disagreed with a recommendation from the [[Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability]].<ref name="51bmtg">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/thu-board/transcript-board-16oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Transcript, Board Meeting], October 16, 2014</ref> The procedure involved options for dialogue and refinement around any recommendation that the board considered to be against the global public interest.<ref name="51bmtg" /> Upon passage of the resolution, Bruce Tonkin noted:
 <blockquote>One other question we've received this week is regarding how we would handle the output from the IANA transition coordination group. What we will do now that we passed this resolution, is we will then send this proposed approach to that coordination group for their consideration. And hopefully we'll be able to come up with a similar mechanism to, again, provide certainty in how we will be handling that.<ref name="51bmtg" /></blockquote> The comment was the subject of discussion in the ICG's meeting the following day.<ref name="51icg">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/losangeles2014/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.html ICANN 51 Archive - Transcript, ICG Meeting], October 17, 2014</ref>
@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 ===ICG Meeting===
-The ICG held a two-day meeting at ICANN 53, addressing a number of topics. Top of the agenda was a preliminary examination of the CWG-Stewardship proposal, which, although it had not been officially transmitted to the ICG, was in the final stages of its development.<ref name="icg53agenda">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg/agenda-icg-18jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - ICG Meeting Agenda], June 15-16, 2015</ref> Patrik Faltstrom led the session, starting with an overview of the SSAC's approach to evaluating the CWG-Stewardship proposal.<ref name="icg53day1">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg/transcript-icg-18jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, ICG Meeting #5 Day 1], June 15-16, 2015</ref>
+The ICG held meetings over three days at ICANN 53, addressing a number of topics. At the meeting in the lead-up to conference programming, the top of the agenda was a preliminary examination of the CWG-Stewardship proposal, which, although it had not been officially transmitted to the ICG, was in the final stages of its development.<ref name="icg53agenda">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg/agenda-icg-18jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - ICG Meeting Agenda], June 18-19, 2015</ref> Patrik Faltstrom led the session, starting with an overview of the SSAC's approach to evaluating the CWG-Stewardship proposal.<ref name="icg53day1">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg/transcript-icg-18jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, ICG Meeting #5 Day 1], June 18-19, 2015</ref>
-==July 2015 - A Full Set of Proposals==
+A week later, on June 25, the closing meeting opened with news that the CWG-Stewardship proposal had received approvals from all of the chartering organizations.<ref name="53close">[https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg-working/transcript-icg-working-25jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, ICG Working Session, June 25, 2015</ref> The goal of the ICG was to deliver a consolidated proposal to the board around the time of ICANN 54 in Dublin.<ref name="53close" />
-The CWG-Stewardship working group submitted its final draft for approval by the chartering organizations in June, and after approval from all of those organizations, passed its proposal on behalf of the naming operational community to the ICG at the end of the month.
-==August 2015: NTIA Extends IANA Functions Contract for One Year==
+==July 2015 - Drafting a Consolidated Proposal==
+The CWG-Stewardship working group submitted its final draft for approval by the chartering organizations in June, and after approval from all of those organizations, passed its proposal on behalf of the naming operational community to the ICG at the end of the month. At its teleconference on July 8, 2015, the ICG began the work of assessing the proposal from the names community. There was broad consensus among those who had volunteered to read and present assessments that the proposal's dependencies on the conclusion of Work Stream One elements in the CCWG-Accountability work track rendered the proposal "incomplete," although the implications of that judgement were a matter of some debate.<ref name="july8call">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-08jul15-en.pdf ICG Meeting Archive - Transcript, ICG Call #19], July 8, 2015</ref> Some members of the ICG thought that the consolidated proposal would not yet be ready for a public comment process, because of the dependencies that existed between the CWG-Stewardship's proposal and the work of the CCWG-Accountability. Others thought that the dependencies could be stipulated as known, and that between close work and communication with the the two working groups, and specificity of expectations regarding the comment period, the ICG could publish a consolidated proposal for comment even if work remained open. There were other issues still pending within the report, including the disposition of the IANA trademarks, website, and domain name.<ref name="july8call" /> The group also discussed some objections to the proposal that had been raised by the community, either through the Stewardship Transition forum or the listserv.<ref name="july8call" /> The ICG also discussed plans for public and press outreach as their work to present a consolidated proposal ramped up.<ref name="july8call" />
+Two weeks later, the twentieth ICG teleconference revealed substantial progress toward a consolidated proposal.<ref name="july15call">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-15jul15-en.pdf ICG Meeting Archive - Transcript, ICG Call #20], July  15, 2015</ref> Alissa Cooper detailed the plan to deal with accountability issues:
+<blockquote>Here in accountability there were a few different topics raised. I think the one that got the most attention was the fact that there are dependencies on the work of the CCWG. I think we have a well‐documented plan as to how these will be handled.<br />
+Just to recap what the plan is, when we put the transition proposal out for public comment we will make it very clear that there’s a parallel process that is developing the accountability mechanisms in the CCWG and that there are dependencies between the names proposal and the outcome of CCWG work stream 1. We will point people to the public comment process that is to occur on the accountability side to make sure that everyone understands what it is and that it’s available to them. Once the CCWG work has concluded and the final accountability proposal has been sent to the SOs and ACs for approval, we will seek confirmation from the CWG that all of their requirements have been met. At that point, depending on what they say back to us, we can make our final determination about accountability, but we can’t really do it before then for the names piece because we are awaiting the CCWG. That’s the plan. I think people kind of highlighted that there’s the dependency, but we do have a plan for how we will assess later.<ref name="july15call" /></blockquote>
+The meeting closed with an intention to have a completed consolidated proposal ready to publish for public comment by the end of the month.<ref name="july15call" /> On the July 29th call, that goal had largely been met.<ref name="july29call">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-29jul15-en.pdf ICG Meeting Archive - Transcript, ICG Call #21], July 29, 2015</ref> After steering the group through final edits and changes to the proposal documents, Cooper stated that the team would have a day to review fresh drafts via the listserv, after which any final edits would be completed and the proposal published for public comment on July 31.<ref name="july29call" /> Cooper thanked everyone for their hard work.
+==Autumn 2015 - Public Comment and NTIA Action==
+The public comment period for the ICG proposal documents opened on July 31, 2015. The ICG posted the call for public comment on their website, ianacg.org<ref>ianacg.org is a WordPress installation that appears to be missing a needed plug-in as of July 2021. Files stored on the site are still accessible, and interested readers can find an archived version of the site from December 2020 on the Internet Archive's [https://web.archive.org/web/20201201013454/https://www.ianacg.org/ Wayback Machine]</ref>. The combined proposal received 157 comments.<ref name="combopc">[https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf ICG Archive - Summary of Public Comments (PDF)]</ref> Public comments were largely positive - the ICG characterized nearly two-thirds of the comments received as "supportive" or expressing "qualified support."<ref name="combopc" /> Because 15% of the comments were designated as "position unclear or not specific" to the proposal, approximately 75% of the salient comments were supportive or expressed qualified support.
+The ICG identified six major themes in the objections to the proposal:
+* Objections related to the relinquishment of, or transfer of jurisdiction over the NTIA's stewardship role;
+* Concerns about the appropriateness and operational readiness of the [[PTI]];
+* Concerns regarding [[root zone management]] (RZM) issues;
+* The impact of dependencies on the overall proposal;
+* Issues connected with the administration of ccTLDs; and
+* Compatibility and interoperability of the proposals as combined.
+Issues raised in comments were catalogued and examined by teams of ICG members. Issues were dealt with in one of three ways:
+* In cases where an issue was already agreed but was still unclear to the community, the issue was added to the executive summary or the ICG's FAQ so that the description of the issue, deliberations, and resolution were more readily accessible and plain;
+* In cases where an issue required review, it was forwarded to the relevant operating community for evaluation and discussion. Operating communities responded with information and revisions for either the executive summary of the proposal, or for inclusion in that OC's transition proposal;
+* In cases where the issue raised was a fundamental issue (for example, opposition to the transition in general) or had been discussed, investigated, and settled to the satisfaction of the relevant operating committee, no further action was taken, except that in some circumstances the issue was forwarded to relevant OC for their own evaluation.
+===NTIA Extends IANA Functions Contract for One Year===
 On August 17, 2017, the NTIA announced its decision to extend the IANA functions contract with ICANN for one year.<ref name="ntiaextend">[https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition NTIA Blog - An Update on the IANA Transition], August 17, 2015</ref> In his message to the community, Larry Strickling wrote:
 <blockquote>This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice<ref>[www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_notice_08102015.pdf Federal Register - IANA Stewardship Transition Consolidated Proposal and ICANN Accountability Enhancements: Request for Comments], August 10, 2015</ref>, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals.<ref name="ntiaextend" /></blockquote>
+===GAO Report on Evaluation of Transition Proposal===
+In September 2015, the GAO publicly released GAO-15-642, "Structured Evaluation Could Help Assess Proposed Transition of Key Domain Name and Other Technical Functions."<ref name="gao">[https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-642 GAO.gov - GAO-15-642], published August 19, 2015; publicly released September 18, 2015</ref> The report was focused on the IANA Transition and the NTIA's role of evaluating and approving the combined transition proposal. In the course of its study, the GAO reviewed documents regarding from ICANN, the ICG, and the working groups devoted to aspects of the transition, interviewed representatives of ten stakeholder federal agencies and thirty-one non-federal agency stakeholders, and interviewed technical experts, including ICANN staff.<ref name="gao" /> The report concluded that NTIA should review relevant evaluation frameworks, such as ISO quality management principles, and adopt or adapt elements of those frameworks in its review of the IANA transition proposal.<ref name="gao" /> The GAO found broad support for the transition during its interview process.<ref name="gao" /> Upon receipt of the report, the Department of Commerce concurred with the recommendation and confirmed that "[a]s part of its evaluation, NTIA will use relevant frameworks suggested by the U.S. GAO to guide its assessment of the final proposal against core goals."<ref name="gao" />
+===CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal 2 and Public Comments===
+In their last call before their in-person meeting at ICANN 54, the ICG discussed some serious divisions of opinions regarding the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1's second draft proposal. The working group had published their second draft report<ref name="acct2report">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stream-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - CCWG-Accountability Proposal], Draft 2, Work Stream 1, August 3, 2015</ref> for public comment in August.<ref name="acct2pc">[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en ICANN Public Comment Archive - CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)], August 3 - September 12, 2015</ref> The report received multiple public comments, including a lengthy response and alternative proposal from the ICANN Board.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html ICANN Listserv Archive - ICANN Board Submission of Supplementary and Final Comments], September 11, 2015</ref> The principle sticking point between the board and the working group was the mechanism for community empowerment.  [[Paul Wilson]] commented on the call about his perception of the severity of the potential delay:
+<blockquote>I think our mission is threatened by what’s going on there. We’re in a potential position of having this entire work effort essentially wasted because a delay for another several years takes us into a completely different environment where this effort that we’ve done may just need to be restarted completely.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-icg-08oct15-en.pdf ICG Meeting Archive - Transcript, ICG Call #24], October 8, 2015</ref></blockquote>
+===ICANN 54===
+[[ICANN 54]] in Dublin featured an in-person meeting of the ICG, as well as considerable work and discussion regarding public comments on the second draft proposal of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1. [[Ira Magaziner]] was again invited to speak on transition perspectives, along with a panel of congressional staffers and attorneys.<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/sun-transition-perspectives ICANN 54 Archive - Transition Perspectives: From an Internet Pioneer and the U.S. Congress], October 18, 2015</ref> Magaziner's comments focused on the momentum that had been gained in the IANA stewardship transition:
+<blockquote>[T]here has been a bottoms-up process with comments, with lots of people involved and I think it's 98, 99% of the way there now to achieving a consensus.<br />
+I think over the coming days, some people who have strongly felt positions, particularly on the accountability issues and so on, are going to have to be willing to modify those positions some. But I think if the history of the consensus process holds, they'll do so; and we'll get a common proposal that I hope will come in a matter of days but certainly not too much into the future. And then at that point, the community will write up a good cogent document that it can present to the U.S. government to hopefully follow through in the transition. And the gentlemen who will be coming up to the stage after me will talk a bit about the process from there.<br />
+But I'm very hopeful that the consensus is just about there. I congratulate the committee chairs and others who have worked on this. It has been a monumental job to navigate all of this through and get it to this point of consensus. And I think they will finish the job in the coming days. And I'm very optimistic about that.<br />
+I'm also optimistic -- I had a very brief chance to meet with some of the staffs. And I'm also optimistic that there is a bipartisan spirit in the U.S. Congress about this. And I'm hopeful that it will avoid the kind of politics that are swirling around and that this will be able to follow through on its merits.<ref name="54tptranscript">[https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/sun-transition-perspectives/transcript-transition-perspectives-18oct15-en ICANN 54 Archive - Transcript: Transition Perspectives], October 18, 2015</ref></blockquote>
+The panel of individuals from Congress was equally positive about the prospects for success. Discussing the transition proposal thus far, the members of both Senate and House committees with oversight over NTIA expressed appreciation for the process and reinforced the bipartisan support for a strong transition proposal.<ref name="54tptranscript" />
 ==Videos==