From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 1 13:55:13 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Doodle for next telephone conferences Message-ID: <00c301d06c83$7b189ab0$7149d010$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please fill out the doodle poll for the upcoming April (8th and 22nd) ICG calls if you have not done so already so we may determine the exact times. Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:48 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle for next telephone conferences All, Scheduling the April calls as follows: - Wednesday, 8 April 2015 – around 04:00 UTC - Wednesday, 22 April 2015 – around 12:00 UTC Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Please note that the above times do not clash with the currently contemplated meeting times for CCWG or CWG Patrik From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 1 14:08:13 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:08:13 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: Vol. 3: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions Message-ID: <00d401d06c85$4c1af670$e450e350$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, ICANN is compiling bi-weekly updates on the community discussions and progress of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe. You may find the full update at the link below: Vol. 3: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions- https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-3-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 1 17:55:37 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:55:37 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Doodle for next telephone conferences Message-ID: <01be01d06ca5$106088f0$31219ad0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Thank you to all who have provided their time preferences so far. Per the Chairs, the cut-off to fill out the doodle poll is Friday 3 April 2015 by 17:00 UTC. Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 9:55 AM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: REMINDER: [Internal-cg] Doodle for next telephone conferences Dear All, Please fill out the doodle poll for the upcoming April (8th and 22nd) ICG calls if you have not done so already so we may determine the exact times. Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:48 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle for next telephone conferences All, Scheduling the April calls as follows: - Wednesday, 8 April 2015 – around 04:00 UTC - Wednesday, 22 April 2015 – around 12:00 UTC Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Please note that the above times do not clash with the currently contemplated meeting times for CCWG or CWG Patrik From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Apr 2 13:59:15 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG calendar subscription Message-ID: <028801d06d4d$356c3e20$a044ba60$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, The calendar subscription function is now live and available for you. Please note that the subscription function is public, and is also available on the website: (1) https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/ , and (2) https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/events-relating-to-the-iana-functions-stewar dship-transition/ . The Secretariat will continue to send out calendar invites prior to the ICG teleconferences, but those who wish to opt out or solely use the calendar subscription, please let us know at admin at icgsec.asia. There are two calendars available: (1) ICG Events, and (2) Events relating to the IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition. (1) ICG Events: This calendar contain only official ICG teleconferences and face-to-face meetings. This calendar may be subscribed using this link: https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/icgsec.asia%40gmail.com/public/basic.ic s (2) Events relating to the IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition: This calendar contains ICG Events and as of now, meetings scheduled for CWG-IANA and CCWG-Accountability. Other events will be added based on ICG interests, requests and needs- please feel free to let the Secretariat know if there are events that should be added. This calendar may be subscribed using this link: https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/fn5or7kegjgp9o6054i8t1fs98%40group.cale ndar.google.com/public/basic.ics Further instructions for calendar clients supporting iCal subscriptions: You may also copy the calendar subscription link above and paste the link into your supported calendar's Subscription Dialogue Box where it asks for an .ics file/URL. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Fri Apr 3 09:52:46 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 09:52:46 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Dear Colleagues, Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June - the last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. Best Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer Sent: 02 April 2015 14:20 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June Hello all, Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 92 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG calendar of calls Apr, May, June.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20789 bytes Desc: CWG calendar of calls Apr, May, June.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG calendar of calls Apr, May, June.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 209046 bytes Desc: CWG calendar of calls Apr, May, June.pdf URL: From housley at vigilsec.com Fri Apr 3 11:36:56 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Martin: The CWG plans to deliver a draft to the SOs and ACs on June 8th. It seems very useful to have a look at the draft and provide feedback out of the ICG session before ICANN 53. Russ On Apr 3, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June – the last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. > > Best > > Martin > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer > Sent: 02 April 2015 14:20 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June > > Hello all, > > Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. > > Thank you! > Kind regards, > Brenda > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Apr 3 13:55:15 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 09:55:15 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <551E9BC3.3090802@oracle.com> Could the secretariat perhaps create a global time calendar where we have our current time frame and include the moving target dates that impact our ability to progress our work? On 4/3/2015 5:52 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which > programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June – the > last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. > > Best > > Martin > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Brenda Brewer > *Sent:* 02 April 2015 14:20 > *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG > Stewardship April-May-June > > Hello all, > > Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG > Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming > events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. > > Thank you! > > Kind regards, > > Brenda > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 92 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Apr 3 17:41:40 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposed Agenda for ICG Call #14 - 8 April 2015 Message-ID: <00b201d06e35$72675100$5735f300$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Please review the proposed agenda for the 8 April 2015 ICG Call #14 below: Proposed agenda by Mohamed: - Welcome ( Introduction and roll call ) - Review of last meeting action items - ICG Revised time line in light of CWG's proposal announced proposed dates - Proposal Finalization Process The doodle poll is now closed: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 . The 8 April call will be held at 04:00-05:00 UTC. The public announcement and call calendar invites will go out as soon as we confirm our chairs' availability for 22 April. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Apr 3 19:10:55 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June In-Reply-To: <551E9BC3.3090802@oracle.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <551E9BC3.3090802@oracle.com> Message-ID: <00bd01d06e41$e9f288a0$bdd799e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The teleconference and target dates for CWG-IANA (as contained in Brenda's email) has been added to the general subscription calendar here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/events-relating-to-the-iana-functions-stewar dship-transition/ . Joe - Did you mean for the Secretariat to have the ICG timeline v7 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en. pdf added to the ICG Events subscription calendar (https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/ ), or did you mean for the Secretariat to create a new timeline graphic, such as the ones found in the Dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Timeline ? Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 9:55 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June Could the secretariat perhaps create a global time calendar where we have our current time frame and include the moving target dates that impact our ability to progress our work? On 4/3/2015 5:52 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: Dear Colleagues, Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June - the last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. Best Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer Sent: 02 April 2015 14:20 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June Hello all, Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 92 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 08:54:51 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 10:54:51 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June In-Reply-To: <551E9BC3.3090802@oracle.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <551E9BC3.3090802@oracle.com> Message-ID: <281392A0-CE7A-4724-905E-38C28C0F6A18@gmail.com> I support that proposal Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Apr 2015, at 15:55, joseph alhadeff wrote: > > Could the secretariat perhaps create a global time calendar where we have our current time frame and include the moving target dates that impact our ability to progress our work? > >> On 4/3/2015 5:52 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June – the last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. >> >> Best >> >> Martin >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer >> Sent: 02 April 2015 14:20 >> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June >> >> Hello all, >> >> Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. >> >> Thank you! >> Kind regards, >> Brenda >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 08:56:42 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 10:56:42 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June In-Reply-To: References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <48227061-97C9-48C4-8A83-F9C0BD147131@gmail.com> Yes that is good provided that the. Draft be circulated to ICG Members a head of time Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Apr 2015, at 13:36, Russ Housley wrote: > > Martin: > > The CWG plans to deliver a draft to the SOs and ACs on June 8th. It seems very useful to have a look at the draft and provide feedback out of the ICG session before ICANN 53. > > Russ > > >> On Apr 3, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June – the last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. >> >> Best >> >> Martin >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer >> Sent: 02 April 2015 14:20 >> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June >> >> Hello all, >> >> Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. >> >> Thank you! >> Kind regards, >> Brenda >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 08:58:39 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 10:58:39 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <809C41CC-921C-4E70-BB40-7DA3A578AC3E@gmail.com> That would be too late. I understood that the draft would be available on 08 June Could the secretariat confirm that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Apr 2015, at 11:52, Martin Boyle wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues, > > Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June – the last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. > > Best > > Martin > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer > Sent: 02 April 2015 14:20 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June > > Hello all, > > Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. > > Thank you! > Kind regards, > Brenda > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Apr 4 16:35:40 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 18:35:40 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Doodle for next telephone conferences In-Reply-To: <01be01d06ca5$106088f0$31219ad0$@icgsec.asia> References: <01be01d06ca5$106088f0$31219ad0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <23FDDBB004FF9C4B8B30D6E4C2ECA4CC0DC4F2D4@ntra-mbx.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear All .. Things came up and contrary to what I've filled in the doodle poll, I won't be able to join the ICG call on Apr 22nd .. I'll be abroad and this coincides with a meeting I'm supposed to attend .. Apologies for the inconvenience .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 7:56 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Doodle for next telephone conferences Dear All, Thank you to all who have provided their time preferences so far. Per the Chairs, the cut-off to fill out the doodle poll is Friday 3 April 2015 by 17:00 UTC. Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 9:55 AM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: REMINDER: [Internal-cg] Doodle for next telephone conferences Dear All, Please fill out the doodle poll for the upcoming April (8th and 22nd) ICG calls if you have not done so already so we may determine the exact times. Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:48 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle for next telephone conferences All, Scheduling the April calls as follows: - Wednesday, 8 April 2015 – around 04:00 UTC - Wednesday, 22 April 2015 – around 12:00 UTC Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Please note that the above times do not clash with the currently contemplated meeting times for CCWG or CWG Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Sat Apr 4 17:52:47 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 19:52:47 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Doodle for next telephone conferences In-Reply-To: <23FDDBB004FF9C4B8B30D6E4C2ECA4CC0DC4F2D4@ntra-mbx.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <01be01d06ca5$106088f0$31219ad0$@icgsec.asia> <23FDDBB004FF9C4B8B30D6E4C2ECA4CC0DC4F2D4@ntra-mbx.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <47F4AF0E-DBBC-4D9C-ACF5-51EEF09299D2@frobbit.se> Noted! paf > On 4 apr 2015, at 18:35, Manal Ismail wrote: > > Dear All .. > Things came up and contrary to what I've filled in the doodle poll, I won't be able to join the ICG call on Apr 22nd .. > I'll be abroad and this coincides with a meeting I'm supposed to attend .. > Apologies for the inconvenience .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 7:56 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Doodle for next telephone conferences > > Dear All, > > Thank you to all who have provided their time preferences so far. Per the Chairs, the cut-off to fill out the doodle poll is Friday 3 April 2015 by 17:00 UTC. > > Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 9:55 AM > To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: REMINDER: [Internal-cg] Doodle for next telephone conferences > > Dear All, > > Please fill out the doodle poll for the upcoming April (8th and 22nd) ICG calls if you have not done so already so we may determine the exact times. > > Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > ICG Secretariat > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:48 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle for next telephone conferences > > All, > > Scheduling the April calls as follows: > > - Wednesday, 8 April 2015 – around 04:00 UTC > - Wednesday, 22 April 2015 – around 12:00 UTC > > Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 > > Please note that the above times do not clash with the currently contemplated meeting times for CCWG or CWG > > Patrik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Apr 6 15:26:07 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 11:26:07 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER - ICG Call #14 - 8 April 2015, 04:00-05:00 UTC Message-ID: <00f701d0707e$039d1200$0ad73600$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #14 is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 8 April 2015** at 04:00-05:00 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://tinyurl.com/pportso Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-fourteenth-and-fifteenth-conference-cal ls/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia . Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let me know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda proposed by Mohamed: - Welcome (Introduction and roll call) - Review of last meeting action items - ICG Revised time line in light of CWG's proposal announced proposed dates - Proposal Finalization Process As always, please do not hesitate to contact the Secretariat should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thanks, Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Apr 6 15:45:47 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:45:47 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timeline v8 In-Reply-To: References: <3851D4ED-7ADC-4B38-8324-747EDC038401@cooperw.in> <23FDDBB004FF9C4B8B30D6E4C2ECA4CC025946FF@ntra-mbx.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <4FD318EF-4A1B-45E1-BA02-6AEF187DD97D@cooperw.in> Hi all, I’m starting to have a look at ICG-related email again and look forward to joining everyone on the April 8 call. Since we’ll be going through outstanding action items on the call, I wanted to bring the one below to folks’ attention. The only responses I saw were from Manal and Kavouss. It would be great to wrap this up on the call, so if anyone has an objection it would be helpful to have that sent to the list or mentioned on the call. Thanks, Alissa On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:59 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Tom, > Please kindly distribute the attached file to all GAC Members and kindly seek their comments and advice as soon as possible. > Sorry I do not have the email address of other vice chairs > Pls then forward them this message > In order to enable me to reflect the views of GAC such comments are highly appreicated > K.Arasteh > GAC ICG Member > > 2015-02-28 14:07 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail : > Apologies for the delayed reply .. > > Thanks a million Alissa, I’m fine with the text .. > > Kind Regards > > --Manal > > > > From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:54 PM > To: ICG > Subject: [Internal-cg] Timeline v8 > > > > I took an action on the Feb 25 call to draft an update to our current timeline document to reflect our discussions about how we will proceed. Since I’m going on leave, I offer the text in the attached for discussion without first coordinating it with the co-chairs and Manal, all of whom should feel free to comment on it just as others should. > > > > The updated file is also in dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1c1efipctyvchu/TimelineDiscussion-v8.docx?dl=0 > > > > Here is the text of the note that I added to the document, which tries to reflect the discussion about this on the mailing list and on the call: > > > > March 2014 Update: The timeline below was created around the assumption that the ICG would receive proposals from each of the three operational communities in January 2015. Given that the names community proposal will take more time, the ICG will proceed with as many of the steps described below as possible for the proposals received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities while the names community concludes its work. This will include ICG members informally seeking provisional comments from their respective communities about the combined draft proposal containing the protocol parameters and numbers proposals. ICG members expect to continue to work together with the names community to help ensure that compatibility between the three proposals can be achieved most efficiently. The ICG will revisit the timeline below in the future as the proposal development work progresses. > > > > Best, > > Alissa > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 7 18:54:48 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 14:54:48 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June In-Reply-To: <809C41CC-921C-4E70-BB40-7DA3A578AC3E@gmail.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <809C41CC-921C-4E70-BB40-7DA3A578AC3E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <007a01d07164$537e2a70$fa7a7f50$@icgsec.asia> Dear Kavouss and All, Per the attached calendar and also with confirmation from ICANN staff supporting the CWG-IANA, the Names Proposal draft will be a public draft (as are all CWG-IANA documents) that will be available and sent to the Chartering Organizations on 8 June 2015. The Names Proposal will not be officially transmitted to the ICG until approved by the Chartering Organizations (25 June 2015). Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 4:59 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June That would be too late. I understood that the draft would be available on 08 June Could the secretariat confirm that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 3 Apr 2015, at 11:52, Martin Boyle > wrote: Dear Colleagues, Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June – the last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. Best Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brenda Brewer Sent: 02 April 2015 14:20 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June Hello all, Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG-IANA calendar Apr-June.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 209046 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 7 19:03:26 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 15:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] PT interpretation for ICG Call #14, Weds 8 April 2015- 04:00-05:00 UTC Message-ID: <008101d07165$87d2f750$9778e5f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Unfortunately, PT interpretation is no longer available for call #14 due to electrical maintenance works at the office where the PT interpreter was scheduled to work. Full details for additional language audio streams for AR - ES - FR - RU - ZH can be found here: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-fourteenth-and-fifteenth-conference-cal ls/ Our sincere apologies for the inconvenience. Best regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Tue Apr 7 19:16:59 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 19:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Fw: Communication Materials for ICG out reach In-Reply-To: <1462464912.1609407.1428433012089.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1462464912.1609407.1428433012089.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1203530444.1628946.1428434219337.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Co-Chairs. On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 7:56 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: Dear Alissa,Welcome back from maternity leave and happy Easter to ICG members.I wish to ask if the Secretariat has been able to produce communication materials for out reach.  I have a briefing session with the Government of Nigeria tomorrow on the work of the ICG.Would any one object to my using the old power point documents on the drop box for the meeting? I am certain it needs updating  on timeline and other progress the ICG had made.If there is a new one produced by the Secretariat, I would appreciate it be forwarded to me today for a 2pm (Nigerian time) meeting tomorrow. I am sorry it is coming on a very short notice, I was just invited today to make a presentation tomorrow. I would also appreciate any further advise from any member.BR.Mary Uduma     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Tue Apr 7 20:11:14 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June In-Reply-To: <007a01d07164$537e2a70$fa7a7f50$@icgsec.asia> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A1C1DF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <809C41CC-921C-4E70-BB40-7DA3A578AC3E@gmail.com> <007a01d07164$537e2a70$fa7a7f50$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <552439E2.30006@oracle.com> It's the stamford. What's the price difference between the tickets? On 4/7/2015 2:54 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear Kavouss and All, > > Per the attached calendar and also with confirmation from ICANN staff > supporting the CWG-IANA, the Names Proposal draft will be a public > draft (as are all CWG-IANA documents) that will be available and sent > to the Chartering Organizations on 8 June 2015. The Names Proposal > will not be officially transmitted to the ICG until approved by the > Chartering Organizations (25 June 2015). > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > ICG Secretariat > > *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf > Of *Kavouss Arasteh > *Sent:* Saturday, April 4, 2015 4:59 AM > *To:* Martin Boyle > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of > upcoming events for CWG Stewardship April-May-June > > That would be too late. > > I understood that the draft would be available on 08 June > > Could the secretariat confirm that > > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 3 Apr 2015, at 11:52, Martin Boyle > wrote: > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > Please note the current timetable for the names proposal which > programmes the delivery of the proposal to the ICG on 25 June – > the last day of the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. > > Best > > Martin > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org > > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Brenda > Brewer > *Sent:* 02 April 2015 14:20 > *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Calendar of upcoming events for CWG > Stewardship April-May-June > > Hello all, > > Please see calendar attached with important dates for the CWG > Stewardship. Official announcements will be emailed confirming > events. This is just to give you an idea of what is coming up. > > Thank you! > > Kind regards, > > Brenda > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 7 22:24:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 18:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved during ICG Call #14 Message-ID: <00b501d07181$a7adf5e0$f709e1a0$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, As a refresher, I have included the minutes (attached and in the Dropbox links below) that still need to be approved during the upcoming call: 1. ICG Meeting #4 F2F minutes, Days 1 and 2. Please note that 6 Feb v4 is based on Milton and Daniel's last email exchange. See this thread for context: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-March/000001.html . 6 Feb v4: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7t4cu2scmoeb96k/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015-v4.docx?dl=0 7 Feb v2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sky0yufony4ypbc/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7- february-2015-v2.docx?dl=0 2. ICG Call #13 minutes. Please note that v2 is based on Mary's edits, both versions are available on Dropbox. See this thread for context: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-March/000033.html . Call #13 minutes MU edits: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wv2doe2695pdqp/minutes-teleconference-11-march-20 15-draft-MU.docx?dl=0 (not attached to this email) Call #13 v2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uil19811906l4md/minutes-teleconference-11-march-20 15-draft-v2.docx?dl=0 The minutes will also be projected during the call for your convenience. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33098 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7-february-2015-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 35086 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33817 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Apr 8 01:40:55 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 21:40:55 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved during ICG Call #14 In-Reply-To: <6FD0F3B5-1FE0-40CD-9829-8A31120C272E@Internet-Matters.com> References: <00b501d07181$a7adf5e0$f709e1a0$@icgsec.asia> <6FD0F3B5-1FE0-40CD-9829-8A31120C272E@Internet-Matters.com> Message-ID: <21D4DBE2-D03B-4306-BFC3-C8ED9E34DBE1@LStAmour.org> Hi, On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > 2. ICG Call #13 minutes. Please note that v2 is based on Mary’s edits, both versions are available on Dropbox. See this thread for context: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-March/000033.html . > Call #13 minutes MU edits: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wv2doe2695pdqp/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-MU.docx?dl=0 (not attached to this email) > Call #13 v2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uil19811906l4md/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v2.docx?dl=0 > two short suggested edits (and not worth a drop box edit): 1 - Under 5. ICG future awareness/infographics/media messages, - 3rd bullet under discussion: OLD: St Amour fully supported more assessable communication. that should read: St Amour fully supported more ACCESSIBLE communication, noting that it was important that we reach out to different audiences using all appropriate means." 2 - still under 5. ICG future awareness/infographics/media messages, - sixth bullet, the very last sub-bullet referencing my Adobe Connect Chat room comment was in support of Jean-Jacques Subrenat's comment above (begins: Subrenat emphasized that he saw no contradictions…." and makes more sense if my chat room comment is moved under that sub-bullet. Could be edited to say: "St.amour agreed with Subrenat stating that 'the entire ICG process…" Best, Lynn From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 02:13:08 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 22:13:08 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved during ICG Call #14 In-Reply-To: <21D4DBE2-D03B-4306-BFC3-C8ED9E34DBE1@LStAmour.org> References: <00b501d07181$a7adf5e0$f709e1a0$@icgsec.asia> <6FD0F3B5-1FE0-40CD-9829-8A31120C272E@Internet-Matters.com> <21D4DBE2-D03B-4306-BFC3-C8ED9E34DBE1@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <00e801d071a1$8f6022e0$ae2068a0$@icgsec.asia> Hi Lynn, Your edits have been incorporated into v3 of the minutes attached and available on Dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-20 15-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 I have left my suggested edits to Mary's additions in redline since they have not been approved yet. Best, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at lstamour.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 9:41 PM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved during ICG Call #14 Hi, On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > 2. ICG Call #13 minutes. Please note that v2 is based on Mary's edits, both versions are available on Dropbox. See this thread for context: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-March/000033.html . > Call #13 minutes MU edits: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wv2doe2695pdqp/minutes-teleconference-11-ma > rch-2015-draft-MU.docx?dl=0 (not attached to this email) Call #13 v2: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/uil19811906l4md/minutes-teleconference-11-ma > rch-2015-draft-v2.docx?dl=0 > two short suggested edits (and not worth a drop box edit): 1 - Under 5. ICG future awareness/infographics/media messages, - 3rd bullet under discussion: OLD: St Amour fully supported more assessable communication. that should read: St Amour fully supported more ACCESSIBLE communication, noting that it was important that we reach out to different audiences using all appropriate means." 2 - still under 5. ICG future awareness/infographics/media messages, - sixth bullet, the very last sub-bullet referencing my Adobe Connect Chat room comment was in support of Jean-Jacques Subrenat's comment above (begins: Subrenat emphasized that he saw no contradictions.." and makes more sense if my chat room comment is moved under that sub-bullet. Could be edited to say: "St.amour agreed with Subrenat stating that 'the entire ICG process." Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 35199 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 05:33:26 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 01:33:26 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Message-ID: <012601d071bd$8a842ca0$9f8c85e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolv ed%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Summary of internally resolved questions-v2.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 16826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 06:06:00 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 02:06:00 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance list and chat transcript for ICG Call #14 Message-ID: <015801d071c2$1704d090$450e71b0$@icgsec.asia> Hello All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and attendance roll call (below) for Call 14, please let me know if you note any discrepancies: ICG Members Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (GAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Manal Ismail (GAC) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) James Bladel (GNSO) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Lynn St. Amour (IAB) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Michael Niebel (GAC) Alan Barrett (NRO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Apologies Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Paul Wilson (NRO) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Call 14 Chat transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 100180 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sherly at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 07:11:06 2015 From: sherly at icgsec.asia (Sherly Haristya) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 15:11:06 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 Message-ID: <00eb01d071cb$30da5860$928f0920$@icgsec.asia> Dear all, Please find the action items from ICG Call #14 as follows: 1. To edit the explanatory text of the published timeline document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). 2. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information collected during the assessment process of the three operational communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. 3. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction. 4. ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. 5. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). 6. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. 7. Regarding minutes for approval: 1) Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb; 2) ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg mailing list and in the next call. Thanks and regards, Sherly ICG Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed Apr 8 07:16:11 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:16:11 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 In-Reply-To: <00eb01d071cb$30da5860$928f0920$@icgsec.asia> References: <00eb01d071cb$30da5860$928f0920$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <0BFF063A-93A5-4C68-9AA7-42CA65307EF5@frobbit.se> > On 8 Apr 2015, at 09:11, Sherly Haristya wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please find the action items from ICG Call #14 as follows: > > 1. To edit the explanatory text of the published timeline document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). This action item was approved after this edit was done. Can secretariat edit and expedite this? > 2. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information collected during the assessment process of the three operational communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. > 3. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction. > 4. ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > 5. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > 6. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > 7. Regarding minutes for approval: 1) Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb; 2) ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg mailing list and in the next call. Can secretariat please initiate this conclusions of approval by sending messages to the list pointing out what is remaining to discuss? Can the secretariat also send out a new list of outstanding action items? Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From sherly at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 08:33:05 2015 From: sherly at icgsec.asia (Sherly Haristya) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:33:05 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 In-Reply-To: <0BFF063A-93A5-4C68-9AA7-42CA65307EF5@frobbit.se> References: <00eb01d071cb$30da5860$928f0920$@icgsec.asia> <0BFF063A-93A5-4C68-9AA7-42CA65307EF5@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <003801d071d6$a54b4d20$efe1e760$@icgsec.asia> Dear all, Kindly find a list of action items that the ICG currently has. Outstanding Action Items from ICG Calls #12 and #13: 1. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information collected during the assessment process of the three operational communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. 2. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction.ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. 3. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). 4. The ICG Chairs to continue checking the possibility of using ICG Secretariat to develop the required messaging/infographs as first preference and report back to the ICG. Action Items from ICG Call #14 1. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. 2. The ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg mailing list and in the next call. 3. The Secretariat edited the explanatory text of the published timeline document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). 4. The ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. 5. Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb. Thanks and regards, Sherly ICG Secretariat -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:16 PM To: Sherly Haristya Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; admin at icgsec.asia Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 > On 8 Apr 2015, at 09:11, Sherly Haristya wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please find the action items from ICG Call #14 as follows: > > 1. To edit the explanatory text of the published timeline document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). This action item was approved after this edit was done. Can secretariat edit and expedite this? > 2. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information collected during the assessment process of the three operational communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. > 3. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction. > 4. ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > 5. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > 6. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > 7. Regarding minutes for approval: 1) Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb; 2) ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg mailing list and in the next call. Can secretariat please initiate this conclusions of approval by sending messages to the list pointing out what is remaining to discuss? Can the secretariat also send out a new list of outstanding action items? Patrik From glaser at cgi.br Wed Apr 8 11:45:34 2015 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 08:45:34 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance list and chat transcript for ICG Call #14 In-Reply-To: <015801d071c2$1704d090$450e71b0$@icgsec.asia> References: <015801d071c2$1704d090$450e71b0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <552514DE.7070703@cgi.br> Please correct => Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Thanks Hartmut ================================== On 08/04/15 03:06, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Hello All, > > Please find the chat transcript (attached) and attendance roll call > (below) for Call 14, please let me know if you note any discrepancies: > > ICG Members > > Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > > Demi Getschko (ISOC) > > Hartmut Glaser (GAC) > > Russ Housley (IAB) > > Narelle Clark (ISOC) > > Manal Ismail (GAC) > > Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > > Alissa Cooper (IETF) > > Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > > Milton Mueller (GNSO) > > Jari Arkko (IETF) > > Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > > Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > > James Bladel (GNSO) > > Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > > Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > > Russ Mundy (SSAC) > > Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > > Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > > Michael Niebel (GAC) > > Alan Barrett (NRO) > > Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > > Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > > Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > > Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > > Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > > Liaisons > > Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > > Apologies > > Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > > Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > > Paul Wilson (NRO) > > Thomas Schneider (GAC) > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 14:29:51 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:29:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance list and chat transcript for ICG Call #14 In-Reply-To: <552514DE.7070703@cgi.br> References: <015801d071c2$1704d090$450e71b0$@icgsec.asia> <552514DE.7070703@cgi.br> Message-ID: <009101d07208$7c734ba0$7559e2e0$@icgsec.asia> Apologies Hartmut, it has been corrected below and will appear so in the minutes for Call #14. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Hartmut Richard Glaser [mailto:glaser at cgi.br] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 7:46 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Attendance list and chat transcript for ICG Call #14 Please correct => Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Thanks Hartmut ================================== On 08/04/15 03:06, Jennifer Chung wrote: Hello All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and attendance roll call (below) for Call 14, please let me know if you note any discrepancies: ICG Members Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Russ Housley (IAB) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Manal Ismail (GAC) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) James Bladel (GNSO) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Lynn St. Amour (IAB) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Michael Niebel (GAC) Alan Barrett (NRO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Apologies Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Paul Wilson (NRO) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 8 14:47:24 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:47:24 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 In-Reply-To: <003801d071d6$a54b4d20$efe1e760$@icgsec.asia> References: <00eb01d071cb$30da5860$928f0920$@icgsec.asia> <0BFF063A-93A5-4C68-9AA7-42CA65307EF5@frobbit.se> <003801d071d6$a54b4d20$efe1e760$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <8e602473fedb4e58bcc36d83ad2092a5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Sherly, and ICG chairs: I don't understand the last two "action items" from call #13. Regarding #3, we had a discussion about jurisdiction in the IETF submission. It is recorded in the transcript of the Singapore F2F meeting. If you review the transcript of that discussion it is inconclusive. There may have been specific decisions taken on the list but all I can find is that we agreed to transmit a question about the IANA domain and trademark, not about jurisdiction. The IETF representatives on the ICG said that there was no need to specify jurisdiction. Their view was expressed most directly by Housely (p 72) "The MoU sets the IAB As the ultimate authority in the case of a dispute, so if the IETF and ICANN disagree, then IAB decides." In other words, the IETF's ultimate recourse is not court of law but the decision to stop using ICANN's IANA and set up its own. This may or may not be a viable position, but the position itself is not clear from the proposal, only from Russ's explanation. I think the only way to make progress here is to ask: what specific question - if any - did we agree to transmit to the IETF about jurisdiction? Narelle on p. 105 says she thinks the concrete question to go back to the IETF was "in what jurisdiction do you think the MoU operates?" But she also said she thought the IETF submission answered that question, indirectly "because it points you off to a bunch of other documents." I am concerned because this keeps popping up as an action item but no one seems to know what action is required. Regarding the second part of #3, " the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs," I have absolutely no idea to what this is referring. Can someone enlighten me? Regarding #4, all I recall is a suggestion that we make infographs, and that I reacted to this negatively, others reacted unenthusiastically, one or two others thought it a good idea. But the discussion was inconclusive. In what sense is this an action item? We have, in my opinion, not agreed on any action, and the discussion last night did not move us anywhere. > -----Original Message----- > > 3. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: > 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities > of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in > the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > > 4. The ICG Chairs to continue checking the possibility of using ICG > Secretariat to develop the required messaging/infographs as first > preference and report back to the ICG. > > Action Items from ICG Call #14 > 1. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call > schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > > 2. The ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG > Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg > mailing list and in the next call. > > 3. The Secretariat edited the explanatory text of the published timeline > document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). > > 4. The ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization > process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > > 5. Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb. > > Thanks and regards, > Sherly > ICG Secretariat > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:16 PM > To: Sherly Haristya > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; admin at icgsec.asia > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 > > > > On 8 Apr 2015, at 09:11, Sherly Haristya wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please find the action items from ICG Call #14 as follows: > > > > 1. To edit the explanatory text of the published timeline document > (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). > > This action item was approved after this edit was done. > > Can secretariat edit and expedite this? > > > 2. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together > with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information > collected during the assessment process of the three operational > communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. > > 3. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information > (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current > overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA > interaction. > > 4. ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process > for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > > 5. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list > about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the > practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred > to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > > 6. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call > schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > > 7. Regarding minutes for approval: 1) Approval of minutes from ICG > Meeting #4 - 7 Feb; 2) ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes > from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg > mailing list and in the next call. > > Can secretariat please initiate this conclusions of approval by sending > messages to the list pointing out what is remaining to discuss? > > Can the secretariat also send out a new list of outstanding action items? > > Patrik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 8 15:45:04 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 15:45:04 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals In-Reply-To: <012601d071bd$8a842ca0$9f8c85e0$@icgsec.asia> References: <012601d071bd$8a842ca0$9f8c85e0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <59938db435ae4537adc9a069d4fc5d41@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Apr 8 15:46:09 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 08:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 In-Reply-To: <8e602473fedb4e58bcc36d83ad2092a5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <21308363.330.1428507969314.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello All, JURISDICTION Underlying this discussion, but not thoroughly expressed so far, are two questions: 1) In case of differing or antagonistic interests, which legal framework would apply? As ICANN and IANA come (exclusively) under US and California law, the US authorities would naturally refuse to be bound by any other legal reference to which they have not subscribed. As long as ICANN and IANA do not have other/separate legal identities (say, in the case of ICANN, fully documented legal responsibilities for their office in Geneva), I don't see any possibility, beyond US and California laws. 2) If there is still doubt about the above, then independent legal advice should be sought. The question is "sought by whom?". I don't think it falls within the remit of ICG to seek that advice directly. But since the CWG-Transition is seeking external legal advice, ICG could forward to them a precise, unambiguous question, e.g. "In case of differing interests and/or views between (A) and (B), would there be a legal basis for invoking any jurisdiction other than US and California laws, and what would be the likelihood of success?". INFOGRAPHS I don't think this is essential, but I would go along with a majority of ICG colleagues. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" À: "Sherly Haristya" , internal-cg at ianacg.org Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Envoyé: Mercredi 8 Avril 2015 07:47:24 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 Sherly, and ICG chairs: I don't understand the last two "action items" from call #13. Regarding #3, we had a discussion about jurisdiction in the IETF submission. It is recorded in the transcript of the Singapore F2F meeting. If you review the transcript of that discussion it is inconclusive. There may have been specific decisions taken on the list but all I can find is that we agreed to transmit a question about the IANA domain and trademark, not about jurisdiction. The IETF representatives on the ICG said that there was no need to specify jurisdiction. Their view was expressed most directly by Housely (p 72) "The MoU sets the IAB As the ultimate authority in the case of a dispute, so if the IETF and ICANN disagree, then IAB decides." In other words, the IETF's ultimate recourse is not court of law but the decision to stop using ICANN's IANA and set up its own. This may or may not be a viable position, but the position itself is not clear from the proposal, only from Russ's explanation. I think the only way to make progress here is to ask: what specific question - if any - did we agree to transmit to the IETF about jurisdiction? Narelle on p. 105 says she thinks the concrete question to go back to the IETF was "in what jurisdiction do you think the MoU operates?" But she also said she thought the IETF submission answered that question, indirectly "because it points you off to a bunch of other documents." I am concerned because this keeps popping up as an action item but no one seems to know what action is required. Regarding the second part of #3, " the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs," I have absolutely no idea to what this is referring. Can someone enlighten me? Regarding #4, all I recall is a suggestion that we make infographs, and that I reacted to this negatively, others reacted unenthusiastically, one or two others thought it a good idea. But the discussion was inconclusive. In what sense is this an action item? We have, in my opinion, not agreed on any action, and the discussion last night did not move us anywhere. > -----Original Message----- > > 3. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: > 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities > of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in > the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > > 4. The ICG Chairs to continue checking the possibility of using ICG > Secretariat to develop the required messaging/infographs as first > preference and report back to the ICG. > > Action Items from ICG Call #14 > 1. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call > schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > > 2. The ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG > Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg > mailing list and in the next call. > > 3. The Secretariat edited the explanatory text of the published timeline > document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). > > 4. The ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization > process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > > 5. Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb. > > Thanks and regards, > Sherly > ICG Secretariat > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:16 PM > To: Sherly Haristya > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; admin at icgsec.asia > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 > > > > On 8 Apr 2015, at 09:11, Sherly Haristya wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please find the action items from ICG Call #14 as follows: > > > > 1. To edit the explanatory text of the published timeline document > (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). > > This action item was approved after this edit was done. > > Can secretariat edit and expedite this? > > > 2. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together > with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information > collected during the assessment process of the three operational > communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. > > 3. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information > (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current > overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA > interaction. > > 4. ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process > for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > > 5. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list > about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the > practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred > to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > > 6. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call > schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > > 7. Regarding minutes for approval: 1) Approval of minutes from ICG > Meeting #4 - 7 Feb; 2) ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes > from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg > mailing list and in the next call. > > Can secretariat please initiate this conclusions of approval by sending > messages to the list pointing out what is remaining to discuss? > > Can the secretariat also send out a new list of outstanding action items? > > Patrik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 15:46:57 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 11:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) Message-ID: <00cc01d07213$3fa8b330$befa1990$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, In continuation of the previous minutes approval, attached please find the following for your review: 1. 6 Feb minutes v5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw68qd2zxntuq3o/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015-v5.docx?dl=0 - I have accepted Milton's edits to the pg. 4 first bullet point under "Discussion" since there were no oppositions to his wording. o "Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU." - I have also reverted pg. 4 section 6 second bullet point, first sentence back to Daniel's suggestion as agreed to in the chat log by Milton from this morning's call. o "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open, transparent [and thoroughly documented] process." - language and link in the [] added by the Secretariat for additional information. 2. 11 Mar minutes v3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-20 15-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 - Edits from Lynn have been incorporated into v3. - Redlined sections on pg. 3 section 3 are edits the Secretariat has made to Mary's additional language and needs approval from Mary/all. Please let me know if there are any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v5.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 32158 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 35138 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sherly at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 16:03:22 2015 From: sherly at icgsec.asia (Sherly Haristya) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 00:03:22 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 In-Reply-To: <21308363.330.1428507969314.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <8e602473fedb4e58bcc36d83ad2092a5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <21308363.330.1428507969314.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <001c01d07215$8c59f610$a50de230$@icgsec.asia> Hi Milton, Regarding action item #4 on the messaging/infographs, here is the flow of the previous discussion: a. Mohammed raised this matter to the mailing list. Here is the link of the last discussion which refers to the inconclusive discussion as you described - http://tiny.cc/4x4rwx b. This idea was furthermore discussed in the ICG Call #13. Please see agenda 5. ICG future awareness/infographs/media messages in this link http://tiny.cc/8w4rwx c. And so, today's call came up with the continuation of the above mentioned action item #4 Thanks and regards, Sherly -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 11:46 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: admin at icgsec.asia; Sherly Haristya; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 Hello All, JURISDICTION Underlying this discussion, but not thoroughly expressed so far, are two questions: 1) In case of differing or antagonistic interests, which legal framework would apply? As ICANN and IANA come (exclusively) under US and California law, the US authorities would naturally refuse to be bound by any other legal reference to which they have not subscribed. As long as ICANN and IANA do not have other/separate legal identities (say, in the case of ICANN, fully documented legal responsibilities for their office in Geneva), I don't see any possibility, beyond US and California laws. 2) If there is still doubt about the above, then independent legal advice should be sought. The question is "sought by whom?". I don't think it falls within the remit of ICG to seek that advice directly. But since the CWG-Transition is seeking external legal advice, ICG could forward to them a precise, unambiguous question, e.g. "In case of differing interests and/or views between (A) and (B), would there be a legal basis for invoking any jurisdiction other than US and California laws, and what would be the likelihood of success?". INFOGRAPHS I don't think this is essential, but I would go along with a majority of ICG colleagues. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" À: "Sherly Haristya" , internal-cg at ianacg.org Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Envoyé: Mercredi 8 Avril 2015 07:47:24 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 Sherly, and ICG chairs: I don't understand the last two "action items" from call #13. Regarding #3, we had a discussion about jurisdiction in the IETF submission. It is recorded in the transcript of the Singapore F2F meeting. If you review the transcript of that discussion it is inconclusive. There may have been specific decisions taken on the list but all I can find is that we agreed to transmit a question about the IANA domain and trademark, not about jurisdiction. The IETF representatives on the ICG said that there was no need to specify jurisdiction. Their view was expressed most directly by Housely (p 72) "The MoU sets the IAB As the ultimate authority in the case of a dispute, so if the IETF and ICANN disagree, then IAB decides." In other words, the IETF's ultimate recourse is not court of law but the decision to stop using ICANN's IANA and set up its own. This may or may not be a viable position, but the position itself is not clear from the proposal, only from Russ's explanation. I think the only way to make progress here is to ask: what specific question - if any - did we agree to transmit to the IETF about jurisdiction? Narelle on p. 105 says she thinks the concrete question to go back to the IETF was "in what jurisdiction do you think the MoU operates?" But she also said she thought the IETF submission answered that question, indirectly "because it points you off to a bunch of other documents." I am concerned because this keeps popping up as an action item but no one seems to know what action is required. Regarding the second part of #3, " the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs," I have absolutely no idea to what this is referring. Can someone enlighten me? Regarding #4, all I recall is a suggestion that we make infographs, and that I reacted to this negatively, others reacted unenthusiastically, one or two others thought it a good idea. But the discussion was inconclusive. In what sense is this an action item? We have, in my opinion, not agreed on any action, and the discussion last night did not move us anywhere. > -----Original Message----- > > 3. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: > 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities > of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in > the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > > 4. The ICG Chairs to continue checking the possibility of using ICG > Secretariat to develop the required messaging/infographs as first > preference and report back to the ICG. > > Action Items from ICG Call #14 > 1. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call > schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > > 2. The ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG > Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg > mailing list and in the next call. > > 3. The Secretariat edited the explanatory text of the published timeline > document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). > > 4. The ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization > process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > > 5. Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb. > > Thanks and regards, > Sherly > ICG Secretariat > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:16 PM > To: Sherly Haristya > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; admin at icgsec.asia > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April > 2015 > > > > On 8 Apr 2015, at 09:11, Sherly Haristya wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please find the action items from ICG Call #14 as follows: > > > > 1. To edit the explanatory text of the published timeline document > (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). > > This action item was approved after this edit was done. > > Can secretariat edit and expedite this? > > > 2. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together > with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of > information collected during the assessment process of the three > operational communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. > > 3. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information > (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ > current overall internal accountability and oversight system related > to IANA interaction. > > 4. ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process > for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > > 5. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list > about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the > practicalities of coordination between the operation communities > (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > > 6. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call > schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > > 7. Regarding minutes for approval: 1) Approval of minutes from ICG > Meeting #4 - 7 Feb; 2) ICG to continue discussing the approval of > minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the > internal-cg mailing list and in the next call. > > Can secretariat please initiate this conclusions of approval by > sending messages to the list pointing out what is remaining to discuss? > > Can the secretariat also send out a new list of outstanding action items? > > Patrik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4321/9486 - Release Date: 04/08/15 From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 16:12:49 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Message-ID: <00d901d07216$dd0bcf10$97236d30$@icgsec.asia> Hi Milton, Call 13, Action Item 3 stems from the discussion from pg 2-3 of the 11 Mar minutes v3, attached and reproduced below in full: * Arasteh reiterated his request to clarify the jurisdiction issue regarding the current IETF-ICANN MoU. He further requested clarification on the management of the coordination of the three operational communities as referenced in the protocol parameters proposal (pg 13, section IV ). o Regarding Arasteh's first point, Arkko stated that it was his recollection that the jurisdiction issue was resolved during the face-to-face meeting, and that it was clarified by Arkko and Housley that IAB is the final arbiter for any issues between ICANN and IETF. Arkko stated that the ICG agreed (and have sent) a question to the operational communities relating to the IPR (domain names and trademarks of iana.org). o Regarding Arasteh's second point, Arkko stated that coordination between the three communities in the IETF process is described in various RFCs and has been a point-to-point coordination between the communities that has occurred many times without issue. * Arasteh requested that Arkko put the above explanation in writing for clarification and discussion. Arasteh further emphasized that the jurisdiction issue is a legal issue that should be properly addressed, and the current answer of 'IAB' is insufficient in his view. * Arkko stated that the IETF community has produced a proposal that explains the IETF process, including accountability mechanisms, and that the community's opinion is clearly reflected in the document. Arkko offered to provide further information in an email to the internal-cg mailing list regarding practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal), but emphasized that he cannot change the protocol parameters' proposal itself. * Adobe Connect chat: Mundy and Housley agreed with Arkko regarding his view that the ICG members cannot change the community proposal. * El Bashir suggested that the ICG continue discussion of this matter on the internal-cg mailing list Action Item 3: The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarifications re the above. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:45 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolv ed%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 35138 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 8 16:57:58 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:57:58 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals In-Reply-To: <59938db435ae4537adc9a069d4fc5d41@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <012601d071bd$8a842ca0$9f8c85e0$@icgsec.asia> <59938db435ae4537adc9a069d4fc5d41@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: If we look back at the discussion we had during call #12 that generated the action item, I think what people wanted was a report (in prose) that could accompany the final transition proposal to give an indication to the wider world of the issues the ICG discussed concerning each community’s proposal. So this would involve taking the matrix that the secretariat has produced and summarizing that information in report form. This is the task that I think Jean-Jacques and Narelle have signed up for. Personally I think we could leave the information in matrix form and it would be just as good, in which case there is no further work for Jean-Jacques and Narelle to do (assuming the secretariat can add to the matrix when we discuss the names proposal). Alissa On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Jennifer > This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. > However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. > > --MM > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals > > Dear All, > > As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: > > ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal > > Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. > > Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 8 16:58:52 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:58:52 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 In-Reply-To: <003801d071d6$a54b4d20$efe1e760$@icgsec.asia> References: <00eb01d071cb$30da5860$928f0920$@icgsec.asia> <0BFF063A-93A5-4C68-9AA7-42CA65307EF5@frobbit.se> <003801d071d6$a54b4d20$efe1e760$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Thank you, Sherly. I think we are starting to have a bit of confusion about some of the action items, who is responsible for them, and what the actions are. I’ve re-framed the action item list below to try to make it more clear about what is of expected of whom. Also, we can deal with minutes approval separately — we will always have minutes that need approval and we should be able to sort those out as long as the secretariat tracks which ones have yet to be approved. Current action items: 1. Subrenat and Clark to draft a report summarizing information collected during the ICG assessment process of the operational communities’ proposals. This report can be published together with the final transition proposal and should be based on summaries of ICG questions/answers provided by the secretariat. (Discussed on calls #12 and #14.) 2. Arkko and Barrett to provide further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list regarding the IETF and RIRs' current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction. (Discussed on calls #12, 13, and 14.) 3. If any ICG member has a specific question about the jurisdiction of the ICANN-IETF MoU that has not been previously answered either in the IETF proposal or in ICG discussions, that ICG member should send that question to the ICG mailing list. If no questions are received before call #15, this action item will be closed. (Discussed during F2F meeting #4 and calls #13 and 14.) 4. If any ICG member has a specific question about the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs) that has not been previously answered in ICG discussions, that ICG member should send that specific question to the ICG mailing list. If no questions are received before call #15, this action item will be closed. (Discussed on calls #13 and 14.) 5. ICG chairs to determine whether ICG secretariat is available to produce outreach messaging/infographs. (Discussed on calls #13 and 14.) 6. Fältström to coordinate with the ICG secretariat on proposed call schedule for after ICANN 53. (Discussed on call #14.) 7. Secretariat to publish Timeline v9 (with approved edit “March 2014”->”April 2015”) on ICG web site. (Discussed on call #14.) Alissa On Apr 8, 2015, at 1:33 AM, Sherly Haristya wrote: > Dear all, > > Kindly find a list of action items that the ICG currently has. > > Outstanding Action Items from ICG Calls #12 and #13: > 1. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information collected during the assessment process of the three operational communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. > > 2. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction.ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > > 3. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > > 4. The ICG Chairs to continue checking the possibility of using ICG Secretariat to develop the required messaging/infographs as first preference and report back to the ICG. > > Action Items from ICG Call #14 > 1. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. > > 2. The ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg mailing list and in the next call. > > 3. The Secretariat edited the explanatory text of the published timeline document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). > > 4. The ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. > > 5. Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb. > > Thanks and regards, > Sherly > ICG Secretariat > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:16 PM > To: Sherly Haristya > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; admin at icgsec.asia > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Call #14, 8 April 2015 > > >> On 8 Apr 2015, at 09:11, Sherly Haristya wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the action items from ICG Call #14 as follows: >> >> 1. To edit the explanatory text of the published timeline document (March 2014 into April 2015; v8 into v9). > > This action item was approved after this edit was done. > > Can secretariat edit and expedite this? > >> 2. The ICG, under the volunteering of Subrenat and Clark together with the Secretariat, to continue discussing the consolidation of information collected during the assessment process of the three operational communities’ proposals on the internal cg-mailing list. >> 3. Arkko and Barrett to continue providing further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF and RIRs’ current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction. >> 4. ICG confirmed the completion of step 2 of the finalization process for the protocol parameter and numbers proposals. >> 5. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg‐mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN‐IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). >> 6. Fältström to coordinate with the Secretariat on the proposed call schedule after ICANN Buenos Aires and share in the internal-cg mailing list. >> 7. Regarding minutes for approval: 1) Approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 7 Feb; 2) ICG to continue discussing the approval of minutes from ICG Meeting #4 - 6 Feb and ICG Call #13 – 11 March on the internal-cg mailing list and in the next call. > > Can secretariat please initiate this conclusions of approval by sending messages to the list pointing out what is remaining to discuss? > > Can the secretariat also send out a new list of outstanding action items? > > Patrik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 8 16:59:37 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:59:37 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] In-Reply-To: <00d901d07216$dd0bcf10$97236d30$@icgsec.asia> References: <00d901d07216$dd0bcf10$97236d30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: OK, thanks. In the future, I would suggest that we not classify "let's continue discussion of on the list as an "action item." ;-) --MM From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:13 PM To: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Hi Milton, Call 13, Action Item 3 stems from the discussion from pg 2-3 of the 11 Mar minutes v3, attached and reproduced below in full: * Arasteh reiterated his request to clarify the jurisdiction issue regarding the current IETF-ICANN MoU. He further requested clarification on the management of the coordination of the three operational communities as referenced in the protocol parameters proposal (pg 13, section IV). o Regarding Arasteh's first point, Arkko stated that it was his recollection that the jurisdiction issue was resolved during the face-to-face meeting, and that it was clarified by Arkko and Housley that IAB is the final arbiter for any issues between ICANN and IETF. Arkko stated that the ICG agreed (and have sent) a question to the operational communities relating to the IPR (domain names and trademarks of iana.org). o Regarding Arasteh's second point, Arkko stated that coordination between the three communities in the IETF process is described in various RFCs and has been a point-to-point coordination between the communities that has occurred many times without issue. ? Arasteh requested that Arkko put the above explanation in writing for clarification and discussion. Arasteh further emphasized that the jurisdiction issue is a legal issue that should be properly addressed, and the current answer of 'IAB' is insufficient in his view. ? Arkko stated that the IETF community has produced a proposal that explains the IETF process, including accountability mechanisms, and that the community's opinion is clearly reflected in the document. Arkko offered to provide further information in an email to the internal-cg mailing list regarding practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal), but emphasized that he cannot change the protocol parameters' proposal itself. * Adobe Connect chat: Mundy and Housley agreed with Arkko regarding his view that the ICG members cannot change the community proposal. * El Bashir suggested that the ICG continue discussion of this matter on the internal-cg mailing list Action Item 3: The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarifications re the above. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:45 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 8 17:07:12 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:07:12 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) In-Reply-To: <00cc01d07213$3fa8b330$befa1990$@icgsec.asia> References: <00cc01d07213$3fa8b330$befa1990$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Thanks Jennifer, these look good to me. Alissa On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > In continuation of the previous minutes approval, attached please find the following for your review: > > 1. 6 Feb minutes v5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw68qd2zxntuq3o/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v5.docx?dl=0 > - I have accepted Milton’s edits to the pg. 4 first bullet point under “Discussion” since there were no oppositions to his wording. > o “Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU.” > - I have also reverted pg. 4 section 6 second bullet point, first sentence back to Daniel’s suggestion as agreed to in the chat log by Milton from this morning’s call. > o "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open, transparent [and thoroughly documented] process." – language and link in the [] added by the Secretariat for additional information. > > 2. 11 Mar minutes v3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 > - Edits from Lynn have been incorporated into v3. > - Redlined sections on pg. 3 section 3 are edits the Secretariat has made to Mary’s additional language and needs approval from Mary/all. > > Please let me know if there are any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 8 17:20:36 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:20:36 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] In-Reply-To: References: <00d901d07216$dd0bcf10$97236d30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <010201d07220$55189a20$ff49ce60$@icgsec.asia> Hi Milton, Noted- the Secretariat will remove references to continued discussion as an 'action item' going forward. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:00 PM To: 'Jennifer Chung'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: RE: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] OK, thanks. In the future, I would suggest that we not classify "let's continue discussion of on the list as an "action item." ;-) --MM From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:13 PM To: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Hi Milton, Call 13, Action Item 3 stems from the discussion from pg 2-3 of the 11 Mar minutes v3, attached and reproduced below in full: * Arasteh reiterated his request to clarify the jurisdiction issue regarding the current IETF-ICANN MoU. He further requested clarification on the management of the coordination of the three operational communities as referenced in the protocol parameters proposal (pg 13, section IV ). o Regarding Arasteh's first point, Arkko stated that it was his recollection that the jurisdiction issue was resolved during the face-to-face meeting, and that it was clarified by Arkko and Housley that IAB is the final arbiter for any issues between ICANN and IETF. Arkko stated that the ICG agreed (and have sent) a question to the operational communities relating to the IPR (domain names and trademarks of iana.org). o Regarding Arasteh's second point, Arkko stated that coordination between the three communities in the IETF process is described in various RFCs and has been a point-to-point coordination between the communities that has occurred many times without issue. * Arasteh requested that Arkko put the above explanation in writing for clarification and discussion. Arasteh further emphasized that the jurisdiction issue is a legal issue that should be properly addressed, and the current answer of 'IAB' is insufficient in his view. * Arkko stated that the IETF community has produced a proposal that explains the IETF process, including accountability mechanisms, and that the community's opinion is clearly reflected in the document. Arkko offered to provide further information in an email to the internal-cg mailing list regarding practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal), but emphasized that he cannot change the protocol parameters' proposal itself. * Adobe Connect chat: Mundy and Housley agreed with Arkko regarding his view that the ICG members cannot change the community proposal. * El Bashir suggested that the ICG continue discussion of this matter on the internal-cg mailing list Action Item 3: The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarifications re the above. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:45 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolv ed%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Apr 13 19:34:17 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:34:17 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public announcement posted: ICG Publishes Update to Process Timeline Message-ID: <008b01d07620$d66c09a0$83441ce0$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Process Timeline v9 has been published on the ICG website. Please find the details in the public announcement posted here: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-publishes-update-to-process-timeline/. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Apr 13 20:35:55 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 8 April 2015 teleconference Message-ID: <00b801d07629$71f47fd0$55dd7f70$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The minutes of the 8 April teleconference (ICG Call #14) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/ndst7gq. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 45042 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 14 18:23:50 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:23:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 8 April 2015 teleconference Message-ID: <01a401d076e0$288d5fd0$79a81f70$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the revised minutes (v2) of the 8 April teleconference attached (corrections on page 3 regarding the closure of ICG Call 12: Action Item 4). This is available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/nyag9h2 Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 4:36 PM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Minutes of the 8 April 2015 teleconference Dear All, The minutes of the 8 April teleconference (ICG Call #14) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/ndst7gq. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 45305 bytes Desc: not available URL: From apb at cequrux.com Tue Apr 14 20:04:27 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:04:27 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Numbers community FAQ and diagram Message-ID: <20150414200427.GF29840@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> The numbers community has published a FAQ on their proposal. See . The answer to the question "What new “oversight” mechanism is being proposed?" includes a diagram of accountability mechanisms, both before and after the transition. This diagram is intended to address the request that was raised by Kavouss Arasteh, and action item 3 from ICG call #14. --apb (Alan Barrett) From paf at frobbit.se Tue Apr 14 22:42:46 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:42:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Numbers community FAQ and diagram In-Reply-To: <20150414200427.GF29840@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20150414200427.GF29840@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <4DDF7E5F-CF72-4A40-B999-089B94CA38A5@frobbit.se> Thanks Alan! Patrik > On 14 apr 2015, at 22:04, Alan Barrett wrote: > > The numbers community has published a FAQ on their proposal. See > . > > The answer to the question "What new “oversight” mechanism is being proposed?" includes a diagram of accountability mechanisms, both before and after the transition. This diagram is intended to address the request that was raised by Kavouss Arasteh, and action item 3 from ICG call #14. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 15 18:39:53 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:39:53 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling Message-ID: <4EEEBA56-78DC-4B8C-927A-EFB18A03754B@cooperw.in> All, We have had many rounds of discussion on the attached document concerning community comments handling and I think we have consensus to publish it. Many thanks to Manal, Lynn, and everyone who worked on this. If there are any outstanding objections to publishing it, please send them to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Community Comments Handling - 13Feb15.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 22128 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 15 19:44:31 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:44:31 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling References: Message-ID: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: Kavouss Arasteh > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > Date: April 15, 2015 at 12:24:40 PM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper > > Dear Alissa, > Thank you very much for the message. > I hope you are well and the baby also is well and does not cry frequently allows you to have some rest and deal with ICG which is is silent mode for mabny weeks.$ > Comibng back to works > I strongly object to give such options to OC . > The first paragraph should be deleted > Delete > > Acknowledge – ICG Secretariat to Sender: > > ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. > > Forward – ICG to Operational Communities:Delete the first pasrt of the first line as shown > > ICG secretariat ( replace the verb will with ) should forward comments received to the relevant OC, ADD ( if so decideD by ICG, see below , , to be handled as if they were raised inside their process and inform the sender accordingly. ADD ( and copied to ICG) > > ICG Internal Process: > > As part of its ongoing proposal assessment process, the ICG will decide whether to direct any questions to the relevant operational community as a result of comments received and will consider responses received from the community during the assessment process. > > Alert – ICG Secretariat to ICG: > > ICG secretariat will alert the ICG of any comments or input received on the ICG Forum. > > Review – ICG Review Comments: > > The ICG will review the comments received and may follow up with its own question(s) to the relevant OC, if the ICG deems necessary. > > Update – ICG Secretariat to ICG: > > On periodic basis, ICG secretariat will create a summary digest of comments received. The ICG requests that OCs, to whom the comments have been addressed, post any summary updates related to their responses or how they have dealt with the comments in general as they find appropriate. > > Reasons > > All decision should remain with ICG as responsible group for this process.OC is advised by ICG and not self selecting whether or not to react > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > > 2015-04-15 20:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > All, > > We have had many rounds of discussion on the attached document concerning community comments handling and I think we have consensus to publish it. Many thanks to Manal, Lynn, and everyone who worked on this. If there are any outstanding objections to publishing it, please send them to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 15 19:48:09 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:48:09 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> Thanks Kavouss, your position is noted. Unless there are other objections that surface, I think we may have consensus with your position in the rough. Alissa On Apr 15, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Kavouss Arasteh >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >> Date: April 15, 2015 at 12:24:40 PM PDT >> To: Alissa Cooper >> >> Dear Alissa, >> Thank you very much for the message. >> I hope you are well and the baby also is well and does not cry frequently allows you to have some rest and deal with ICG which is is silent mode for mabny weeks.$ >> Comibng back to works >> I strongly object to give such options to OC . >> The first paragraph should be deleted >> Delete >> >> Acknowledge – ICG Secretariat to Sender: >> >> ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. >> >> Forward – ICG to Operational Communities:Delete the first pasrt of the first line as shown >> >> ICG secretariat ( replace the verb will with ) should forward comments received to the relevant OC, ADD ( if so decideD by ICG, see below , , to be handled as if they were raised inside their process and inform the sender accordingly. ADD ( and copied to ICG) >> >> ICG Internal Process: >> >> As part of its ongoing proposal assessment process, the ICG will decide whether to direct any questions to the relevant operational community as a result of comments received and will consider responses received from the community during the assessment process. >> >> Alert – ICG Secretariat to ICG: >> >> ICG secretariat will alert the ICG of any comments or input received on the ICG Forum. >> >> Review – ICG Review Comments: >> >> The ICG will review the comments received and may follow up with its own question(s) to the relevant OC, if the ICG deems necessary. >> >> Update – ICG Secretariat to ICG: >> >> On periodic basis, ICG secretariat will create a summary digest of comments received. The ICG requests that OCs, to whom the comments have been addressed, post any summary updates related to their responses or how they have dealt with the comments in general as they find appropriate. >> >> Reasons >> >> All decision should remain with ICG as responsible group for this process.OC is advised by ICG and not self selecting whether or not to react >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> >> 2015-04-15 20:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> All, >> >> We have had many rounds of discussion on the attached document concerning community comments handling and I think we have consensus to publish it. Many thanks to Manal, Lynn, and everyone who worked on this. If there are any outstanding objections to publishing it, please send them to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 15 20:59:10 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:59:10 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> If the objection is to this: ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. I really don't see why there should be any controversy - from either side. It would be easy to just forward the comments, but even if the OC completely ignores the comments it gets or the ICG Forum, the ICG has the authority to agree to send questions to them based on its own reading of the comments. So I don't disagree with Kavouss, I don't understand why we would not forward the comments, but it doesn't really matter in my view. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:48 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling Thanks Kavouss, your position is noted. Unless there are other objections that surface, I think we may have consensus with your position in the rough. Alissa On Apr 15, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Kavouss Arasteh > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling Date: April 15, 2015 at 12:24:40 PM PDT To: Alissa Cooper > Dear Alissa, Thank you very much for the message. I hope you are well and the baby also is well and does not cry frequently allows you to have some rest and deal with ICG which is is silent mode for mabny weeks.$ Comibng back to works I strongly object to give such options to OC . The first paragraph should be deleted Delete 1. Acknowledge - ICG Secretariat to Sender: ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. 1. Forward - ICG to Operational Communities:Delete the first pasrt of the first line as shown ICG secretariat ( replace the verb will with ) should forward comments received to the relevant OC, ADD ( if so decideD by ICG, see below , , to be handled as if they were raised inside their process and inform the sender accordingly. ADD ( and copied to ICG) ICG Internal Process: As part of its ongoing proposal assessment process, the ICG will decide whether to direct any questions to the relevant operational community as a result of comments received and will consider responses received from the community during the assessment process. 1. Alert - ICG Secretariat to ICG: ICG secretariat will alert the ICG of any comments or input received on the ICG Forum. 1. Review - ICG Review Comments: The ICG will review the comments received and may follow up with its own question(s) to the relevant OC, if the ICG deems necessary. 1. Update - ICG Secretariat to ICG: On periodic basis, ICG secretariat will create a summary digest of comments received. The ICG requests that OCs, to whom the comments have been addressed, post any summary updates related to their responses or how they have dealt with the comments in general as they find appropriate. Reasons All decision should remain with ICG as responsible group for this process.OC is advised by ICG and not self selecting whether or not to react Regards Kavouss 2015-04-15 20:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper >: All, We have had many rounds of discussion on the attached document concerning community comments handling and I think we have consensus to publish it. Many thanks to Manal, Lynn, and everyone who worked on this. If there are any outstanding objections to publishing it, please send them to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Apr 15 22:09:50 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:09:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> Colleagues: I think we are somewhat talking past each other. We assemble the final proposal and do not draft the proposal parts. If a proposal specific comment comes to us we have one action and 3 choices: - The common action is to read what has been sent to us through some mechanism. Not each person would need to read all messages or we may get them in digest form rather than real time or we may have a designated process of who reads what. Para one of the text suggests that receipt of the comment be acknowledged. That should not be very troubling. Choices: a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. best- Joe On 4/15/2015 4:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > If the objection is to this: > > ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt > message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community > comments directly submitted to its forum. > > I really don’t see why there should be any controversy – from either > side. It would be easy to just forward the comments, but even if the > OC completely ignores the comments it gets or the ICG Forum, the ICG > has the authority to agree to send questions to them based on its own > reading of the comments. > > So I don’t disagree with Kavouss, I don’t understand why we would not > forward the comments, but it doesn’t really matter in my view. > > --MM > > *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf > Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:48 PM > *To:* Kavouss Arasteh > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments > handling > > Thanks Kavouss, your position is noted. Unless there are other > objections that surface, I think we may have consensus with your > position in the rough. > > Alissa > > On Apr 15, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *Kavouss Arasteh > > > *Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments > handling* > > *Date: *April 15, 2015 at 12:24:40 PM PDT > > *To: *Alissa Cooper > > > Dear Alissa, > > Thank you very much for the message. > > I hope you are well and the baby also is well and does not cry > frequently allows you to have some rest and deal with ICG > which is is silent mode for mabny weeks.$ > > Comibng back to works > > I strongly object to give such options to OC . > > The first paragraph should be deleted > > Delete > > 1.*Acknowledge – ICG Secretariat to Sender:* > > ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated > receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to > handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. > > 1.*Forward – ICG to Operational Communities:Delete the first > pasrt of the first line as shown * > > ICG secretariat ( replace the verb will with ) should > forward comments received to the relevant OC, ADD ( if so > decideD by ICG, see below , , to be handled as if they were > raised inside their process and inform the sender accordingly. > ADD ( and copied to ICG) > > *_ICG Internal Process:_* > > As part of its ongoing proposal assessment process, the ICG > will decide whether to direct any questions to the relevant > operational community as a result of comments received and > will consider responses received from the community during the > assessment process. > > 1.*Alert – ICG Secretariat to ICG:* > > ICG secretariat will alert the ICG of any comments or input > received on the ICG Forum > . > > 1.*Review – ICG Review Comments:* > > The ICG will review the comments received and may follow up > with its own question(s) to the relevant OC, if the ICG deems > necessary. > > 1.*Update – ICG Secretariat to ICG:* > > On periodic basis, ICG secretariat will create a summary > digest of comments received. The ICG requests that OCs, to > whom the comments have been addressed, post any summary > updates related to their responses or how they have dealt with > the comments in general as they find appropriate. > > Reasons > > All decision should remain with ICG as responsible group for > this process.OC is advised by ICG and not self selecting > whether or not to react > > Regards > > Kavouss > > 2015-04-15 20:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper >: > > All, > > We have had many rounds of discussion on the attached > document > > concerning community comments handling and I think we have > consensus to publish it. Many thanks to Manal, Lynn, and > everyone who worked on this. If there are any outstanding > objections to publishing it, please send them to the list > by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Apr 16 00:14:35 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:14:35 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>, <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> Message-ID: Thanks Joe...this makes sense to me. - Keith Drazek On Apr 16, 2015, at 12:10 AM, joseph alhadeff > wrote: Colleagues: I think we are somewhat talking past each other. We assemble the final proposal and do not draft the proposal parts. If a proposal specific comment comes to us we have one action and 3 choices: - The common action is to read what has been sent to us through some mechanism. Not each person would need to read all messages or we may get them in digest form rather than real time or we may have a designated process of who reads what. Para one of the text suggests that receipt of the comment be acknowledged. That should not be very troubling. Choices: a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. best- Joe On 4/15/2015 4:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: If the objection is to this: ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. I really don’t see why there should be any controversy – from either side. It would be easy to just forward the comments, but even if the OC completely ignores the comments it gets or the ICG Forum, the ICG has the authority to agree to send questions to them based on its own reading of the comments. So I don’t disagree with Kavouss, I don’t understand why we would not forward the comments, but it doesn’t really matter in my view. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:48 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling Thanks Kavouss, your position is noted. Unless there are other objections that surface, I think we may have consensus with your position in the rough. Alissa On Apr 15, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Kavouss Arasteh > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling Date: April 15, 2015 at 12:24:40 PM PDT To: Alissa Cooper > Dear Alissa, Thank you very much for the message. I hope you are well and the baby also is well and does not cry frequently allows you to have some rest and deal with ICG which is is silent mode for mabny weeks.$ Comibng back to works I strongly object to give such options to OC . The first paragraph should be deleted Delete 1. Acknowledge – ICG Secretariat to Sender: ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. 1. Forward – ICG to Operational Communities:Delete the first pasrt of the first line as shown ICG secretariat ( replace the verb will with ) should forward comments received to the relevant OC, ADD ( if so decideD by ICG, see below , , to be handled as if they were raised inside their process and inform the sender accordingly. ADD ( and copied to ICG) ICG Internal Process: As part of its ongoing proposal assessment process, the ICG will decide whether to direct any questions to the relevant operational community as a result of comments received and will consider responses received from the community during the assessment process. 1. Alert – ICG Secretariat to ICG: ICG secretariat will alert the ICG of any comments or input received on the ICG Forum. 1. Review – ICG Review Comments: The ICG will review the comments received and may follow up with its own question(s) to the relevant OC, if the ICG deems necessary. 1. Update – ICG Secretariat to ICG: On periodic basis, ICG secretariat will create a summary digest of comments received. The ICG requests that OCs, to whom the comments have been addressed, post any summary updates related to their responses or how they have dealt with the comments in general as they find appropriate. Reasons All decision should remain with ICG as responsible group for this process.OC is advised by ICG and not self selecting whether or not to react Regards Kavouss 2015-04-15 20:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper >: All, We have had many rounds of discussion on the attached document concerning community comments handling and I think we have consensus to publish it. Many thanks to Manal, Lynn, and everyone who worked on this. If there are any outstanding objections to publishing it, please send them to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Apr 16 06:16:32 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:16:32 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> Message-ID: > On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: > > Choices: > > a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. > b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. > c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. > > Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Apr 16 07:57:44 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 03:57:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Consensus_call=3A_Community_comments_hand?= =?utf-8?q?ling?= Message-ID: <20150416074206.993551C0F85@smtp.notifymdm.com> As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: > > Choices: > > a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. > b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. > c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. > > Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. Patrik From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Apr 16 08:15:41 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:15:41 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] In-Reply-To: <010201d07220$55189a20$ff49ce60$@icgsec.asia> References: <00d901d07216$dd0bcf10$97236d30$@icgsec.asia> <010201d07220$55189a20$ff49ce60$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286B45@ACCAN01.accan.local> I'm not convinced that is the right thing to do... I suspect a better approach is to say in the meeting: "okay, we are not resolving this item within the time available, shall we: 1. Identify the open explicit question 2. Designate an individual to track status of the question" Then we would track the status of the open explicit question. In this particular instance, my personal view is that the specific topic was answered. Happy to be proven wrong. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2015 3:21 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Hi Milton, Noted- the Secretariat will remove references to continued discussion as an 'action item' going forward. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:00 PM To: 'Jennifer Chung'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: RE: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] OK, thanks. In the future, I would suggest that we not classify "let's continue discussion of on the list as an "action item." ;-) --MM From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:13 PM To: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Hi Milton, Call 13, Action Item 3 stems from the discussion from pg 2-3 of the 11 Mar minutes v3, attached and reproduced below in full: * Arasteh reiterated his request to clarify the jurisdiction issue regarding the current IETF-ICANN MoU. He further requested clarification on the management of the coordination of the three operational communities as referenced in the protocol parameters proposal (pg 13, section IV). o Regarding Arasteh's first point, Arkko stated that it was his recollection that the jurisdiction issue was resolved during the face-to-face meeting, and that it was clarified by Arkko and Housley that IAB is the final arbiter for any issues between ICANN and IETF. Arkko stated that the ICG agreed (and have sent) a question to the operational communities relating to the IPR (domain names and trademarks of iana.org). o Regarding Arasteh's second point, Arkko stated that coordination between the three communities in the IETF process is described in various RFCs and has been a point-to-point coordination between the communities that has occurred many times without issue. * Arasteh requested that Arkko put the above explanation in writing for clarification and discussion. Arasteh further emphasized that the jurisdiction issue is a legal issue that should be properly addressed, and the current answer of 'IAB' is insufficient in his view. * Arkko stated that the IETF community has produced a proposal that explains the IETF process, including accountability mechanisms, and that the community's opinion is clearly reflected in the document. Arkko offered to provide further information in an email to the internal-cg mailing list regarding practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal), but emphasized that he cannot change the protocol parameters' proposal itself. * Adobe Connect chat: Mundy and Housley agreed with Arkko regarding his view that the ICG members cannot change the community proposal. * El Bashir suggested that the ICG continue discussion of this matter on the internal-cg mailing list Action Item 3: The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarifications re the above. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:45 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Apr 16 08:17:57 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:17:57 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Numbers community FAQ and diagram In-Reply-To: <20150414200427.GF29840@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20150414200427.GF29840@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286B46@ACCAN01.accan.local> I commend the numbers community! Narelle > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alan > Barrett > Sent: Wednesday, 15 April 2015 6:04 AM > To: ICG > Subject: [Internal-cg] Numbers community FAQ and diagram > > The numbers community has published a FAQ on their proposal. See > . > > The answer to the question "What new “oversight” mechanism is being > proposed?" includes a diagram of accountability mechanisms, both before > and after the transition. This diagram is intended to address the request that > was raised by Kavouss Arasteh, and action item 3 from ICG call #14. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Apr 16 08:23:38 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:23:38 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>, <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286B47@ACCAN01.accan.local> And me also. This is a nice clear way to put it. The only thing to really be wary of, beyond not missing real issues, is an endless loop. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2015 10:15 AM To: joseph alhadeff Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling Thanks Joe...this makes sense to me. - Keith Drazek On Apr 16, 2015, at 12:10 AM, joseph alhadeff > wrote: Colleagues: I think we are somewhat talking past each other. We assemble the final proposal and do not draft the proposal parts. If a proposal specific comment comes to us we have one action and 3 choices: - The common action is to read what has been sent to us through some mechanism. Not each person would need to read all messages or we may get them in digest form rather than real time or we may have a designated process of who reads what. Para one of the text suggests that receipt of the comment be acknowledged. That should not be very troubling. Choices: a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. best- Joe On 4/15/2015 4:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: If the objection is to this: ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. I really don't see why there should be any controversy - from either side. It would be easy to just forward the comments, but even if the OC completely ignores the comments it gets or the ICG Forum, the ICG has the authority to agree to send questions to them based on its own reading of the comments. So I don't disagree with Kavouss, I don't understand why we would not forward the comments, but it doesn't really matter in my view. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:48 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Consensus call: Community comments handling Thanks Kavouss, your position is noted. Unless there are other objections that surface, I think we may have consensus with your position in the rough. Alissa On Apr 15, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Kavouss Arasteh > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling Date: April 15, 2015 at 12:24:40 PM PDT To: Alissa Cooper > Dear Alissa, Thank you very much for the message. I hope you are well and the baby also is well and does not cry frequently allows you to have some rest and deal with ICG which is is silent mode for mabny weeks.$ Comibng back to works I strongly object to give such options to OC . The first paragraph should be deleted Delete 1. Acknowledge - ICG Secretariat to Sender: ICG secretariat will acknowledge receipt through an automated receipt message that includes the steps ICG will follow to handle community comments directly submitted to its forum. 1. Forward - ICG to Operational Communities:Delete the first pasrt of the first line as shown ICG secretariat ( replace the verb will with ) should forward comments received to the relevant OC, ADD ( if so decideD by ICG, see below , , to be handled as if they were raised inside their process and inform the sender accordingly. ADD ( and copied to ICG) ICG Internal Process: As part of its ongoing proposal assessment process, the ICG will decide whether to direct any questions to the relevant operational community as a result of comments received and will consider responses received from the community during the assessment process. 1. Alert - ICG Secretariat to ICG: ICG secretariat will alert the ICG of any comments or input received on the ICG Forum. 1. Review - ICG Review Comments: The ICG will review the comments received and may follow up with its own question(s) to the relevant OC, if the ICG deems necessary. 1. Update - ICG Secretariat to ICG: On periodic basis, ICG secretariat will create a summary digest of comments received. The ICG requests that OCs, to whom the comments have been addressed, post any summary updates related to their responses or how they have dealt with the comments in general as they find appropriate. Reasons All decision should remain with ICG as responsible group for this process.OC is advised by ICG and not self selecting whether or not to react Regards Kavouss 2015-04-15 20:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper >: All, We have had many rounds of discussion on the attached document concerning community comments handling and I think we have consensus to publish it. Many thanks to Manal, Lynn, and everyone who worked on this. If there are any outstanding objections to publishing it, please send them to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 08:39:02 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:39:02 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> Message-ID: Patrik Pls read the text carefully It says ICG may decides to send comments received from .... To OCs Consequently it is the ICG who examine the case and decides on the beed or otherwise to respond I do nit want to exclude ICG from the process and just leave it as an option to OCd to reply or not . Refards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Apr 2015, at 08:16, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> Choices: >> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. >> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. > > > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). > > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. > > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 08:41:34 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:41:34 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <20150416074206.993551C0F85@smtp.notifymdm.com> References: <20150416074206.993551C0F85@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: <4D4F1816-A1A2-4CC6-8AFE-24908DC5DFAB@gmail.com> Dear Joseph Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> Choices: >> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. >> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. > > > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). > > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. > > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. > > Patrik > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Apr 16 09:56:58 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 05:56:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Consensus_call=3A_Community_comments_hand?= =?utf-8?q?ling?= Message-ID: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> Kavouss: We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling Dear Joseph Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> Choices: >> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. >> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. > > > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). > > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. > > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. > > Patrik > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 11:01:59 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:01:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: Dear Alissa, Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement. My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to take that into account I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning We need to be practical and comply with our charter. Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done. The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must be treated properly. Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the questions Then what is the role of the ICG? Community expects a proper action from ICG, The issue is not so difficult Pls do not make a mass of that. Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not to diverge This is an important matter left from Singapore Regards Kavouss 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : > Kavouss: > > We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree > our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. > > As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if > a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has > been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow > up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question > on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to > answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. > We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... > > I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward > questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... > > Joe > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM > To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [ > internal-cg at ianacg.org] > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > Dear Joseph > Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment > received needs to be replied and not all comments. > Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff > wrote: > > > > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. > > > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] > > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM > > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > > > > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff > wrote: > >> > >> Choices: > >> > >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow > up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the > proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. > >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the > joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. > As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the > chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the > community. > >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions > we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping > watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding > comments. > >> > >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b > and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and > assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address > them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that > those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their > questions heard. > > > > > > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can > at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And > b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was > adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). > > > > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward > questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on > whatever is sent in. > > > > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming > in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. > > > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Apr 16 15:13:58 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:13:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <30439075.145.1429197238598.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear ICG Colleagues, Narelle and I volunteered to help draft a report on the questions formulated in the assessment of the proposals received. Alissa remarked that this information was already available in the form of a fully-informed matrix, set up by our Secretariat. Having reviewed the action point in light of Alissa's remarks, we suggest going along with the Secretariat's document, which will need to be completed with the relevant data from the assessment of the Names' proposal, and any additional data which may seem necessary at a later stage. In the absence of objections by Monday 20 April 2015 (end of day UTC), we request Secretariat to modify the Action Item. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Milton L Mueller" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 8 Avril 2015 18:57:58 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals If we look back at the discussion we had during call #12 that generated the action item, I think what people wanted was a report (in prose) that could accompany the final transition proposal to give an indication to the wider world of the issues the ICG discussed concerning each community’s proposal. So this would involve taking the matrix that the secretariat has produced and summarizing that information in report form. This is the task that I think Jean-Jacques and Narelle have signed up for. Personally I think we could leave the information in matrix form and it would be just as good, in which case there is no further work for Jean-Jacques and Narelle to do (assuming the secretariat can add to the matrix when we discuss the names proposal). Alissa On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 16 18:48:42 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:48:42 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286B45@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <00d901d07216$dd0bcf10$97236d30$@icgsec.asia> <010201d07220$55189a20$ff49ce60$@icgsec.asia> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286B45@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <1a3823f2c458451abb0eca054b58b089@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Narelle: The minutes can say "Item was not resolved." Then we can take it up at the next meeting or on the list - IF someone wants it on the agenda It makes no sense, however, to say classify as an "action item" an unresolved discussion. I hope we can agree on that simple point. This discussion is no longer about "the specific topic" that triggered one of the endless loops. It was about how calling non-action items action items can confuse people and waste time. --MM From: Narelle Clark [mailto:narelle.clark at accan.org.au] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:16 AM To: Jennifer Chung; Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] I'm not convinced that is the right thing to do... I suspect a better approach is to say in the meeting: "okay, we are not resolving this item within the time available, shall we: 1. Identify the open explicit question 2. Designate an individual to track status of the question" Then we would track the status of the open explicit question. In this particular instance, my personal view is that the specific topic was answered. Happy to be proven wrong. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2015 3:21 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Hi Milton, Noted- the Secretariat will remove references to continued discussion as an 'action item' going forward. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:00 PM To: 'Jennifer Chung'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: RE: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] OK, thanks. In the future, I would suggest that we not classify "let's continue discussion of on the list as an "action item." ;-) --MM From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:13 PM To: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Hi Milton, Call 13, Action Item 3 stems from the discussion from pg 2-3 of the 11 Mar minutes v3, attached and reproduced below in full: * Arasteh reiterated his request to clarify the jurisdiction issue regarding the current IETF-ICANN MoU. He further requested clarification on the management of the coordination of the three operational communities as referenced in the protocol parameters proposal (pg 13, section IV). o Regarding Arasteh's first point, Arkko stated that it was his recollection that the jurisdiction issue was resolved during the face-to-face meeting, and that it was clarified by Arkko and Housley that IAB is the final arbiter for any issues between ICANN and IETF. Arkko stated that the ICG agreed (and have sent) a question to the operational communities relating to the IPR (domain names and trademarks of iana.org). o Regarding Arasteh's second point, Arkko stated that coordination between the three communities in the IETF process is described in various RFCs and has been a point-to-point coordination between the communities that has occurred many times without issue. * Arasteh requested that Arkko put the above explanation in writing for clarification and discussion. Arasteh further emphasized that the jurisdiction issue is a legal issue that should be properly addressed, and the current answer of 'IAB' is insufficient in his view. * Arkko stated that the IETF community has produced a proposal that explains the IETF process, including accountability mechanisms, and that the community's opinion is clearly reflected in the document. Arkko offered to provide further information in an email to the internal-cg mailing list regarding practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal), but emphasized that he cannot change the protocol parameters' proposal itself. * Adobe Connect chat: Mundy and Housley agreed with Arkko regarding his view that the ICG members cannot change the community proposal. * El Bashir suggested that the ICG continue discussion of this matter on the internal-cg mailing list Action Item 3: The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarifications re the above. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:45 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 16 19:16:58 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:16:58 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what changes you all have agreed. Thanks, Alissa On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Alissa, > Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored > We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement. > My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to take that into account > I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning > We need to be practical and comply with our charter. > Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done. > The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . > Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must be treated properly. > Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the questions > Then what is the role of the ICG? > > Community expects a proper action from ICG, > > The issue is not so difficult > > Pls do not make a mass of that. > > Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits > > Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not to diverge > > This is an important matter left from Singapore > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : > Kavouss: > > We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. > > As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... > > I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... > > Joe > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM > To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > Dear Joseph > Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. > Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > > > > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. > > > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] > > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM > > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > > > > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: > >> > >> Choices: > >> > >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. > >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. > >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. > >> > >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. > > > > > > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). > > > > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. > > > > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. > > > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 16 19:28:32 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:28:32 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) In-Reply-To: <00cc01d07213$3fa8b330$befa1990$@icgsec.asia> References: <00cc01d07213$3fa8b330$befa1990$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <91590858-804A-4DBD-B61E-BFAD917AEA7E@cooperw.in> All, I’d like to get these minutes approved. Please send any edits to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. Thanks, Alissa On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > In continuation of the previous minutes approval, attached please find the following for your review: > > 1. 6 Feb minutes v5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw68qd2zxntuq3o/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v5.docx?dl=0 > - I have accepted Milton’s edits to the pg. 4 first bullet point under “Discussion” since there were no oppositions to his wording. > o “Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU.” > - I have also reverted pg. 4 section 6 second bullet point, first sentence back to Daniel’s suggestion as agreed to in the chat log by Milton from this morning’s call. > o "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open, transparent [and thoroughly documented] process." – language and link in the [] added by the Secretariat for additional information. > > 2. 11 Mar minutes v3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 > - Edits from Lynn have been incorporated into v3. > - Redlined sections on pg. 3 section 3 are edits the Secretariat has made to Mary’s additional language and needs approval from Mary/all. > > Please let me know if there are any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 11:45:56 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:45:56 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> Alissa Thank you for the message Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give the choice ti OCs to reply or not Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and copy the reply to ICG This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight that process as indicated in our charter. We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find a solution. Regards Ksvouss Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what changes you all have agreed. > > Thanks, > Alissa > >> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Dear Alissa, >> Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored >> We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement. >> My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to take that into account >> I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning >> We need to be practical and comply with our charter. >> Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done. >> The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . >> Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must be treated properly. >> Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the questions >> Then what is the role of the ICG? >> Community expects a proper action from ICG, >> The issue is not so difficult >> Pls do not make a mass of that. >> Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits >> Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not to diverge >> This is an important matter left from Singapore >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : >>> Kavouss: >>> >>> We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. >>> >>> As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... >>> >>> I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >>> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM >>> To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] >>> CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >>> >>> Dear Joseph >>> Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. >>> Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >>> > >>> > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. >>> > >>> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > >>> > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] >>> > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM >>> > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] >>> > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >>> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Choices: >>> >> >>> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. >>> >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >>> >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. >>> >> >>> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. >>> > >>> > >>> > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). >>> > >>> > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. >>> > >>> > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. >>> > >>> > Patrik >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Internal-cg mailing list >>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Fri Apr 17 15:08:20 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:08:20 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Numbers community FAQ and diagram In-Reply-To: <20150414200427.GF29840@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20150414200427.GF29840@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <4DA47B14-76DA-4133-A28E-4A3D1C291446@LStAmour.org> Alan, this is very clear and very well done. Thank you to you and all your colleagues. Best, Lynn On Apr 14, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > The numbers community has published a FAQ on their proposal. See > . > > The answer to the question "What new “oversight” mechanism is being proposed?" includes a diagram of accountability mechanisms, both before and after the transition. This diagram is intended to address the request that was raised by Kavouss Arasteh, and action item 3 from ICG call #14. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Apr 17 20:08:49 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6C0FC373-9E0E-4BB4-AF65-DECB5BFDA92E@cooperw.in> I don’t care who edits the document as long as someone does. I think if we can’t resolve this by May 1 we should drop it and go back to dealing with community comments on an ad hoc basis. We’ve now spent an order of magnitude more time discussing this process than we are likely to ever spend using it. That strikes me as us just making needless work for ourselves. Alissa On Apr 17, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Alissa > Thank you for the message > Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give the choice ti OCs to reply or not > Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and copy the reply to ICG > This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight that process as indicated in our charter. > We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. > Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. > I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find a solution. > Regards > Ksvouss > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what changes you all have agreed. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >>> Dear Alissa, >>> Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored >>> We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement. >>> My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to take that into account >>> I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning >>> We need to be practical and comply with our charter. >>> Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done. >>> The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . >>> Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must be treated properly. >>> Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the questions >>> Then what is the role of the ICG? >>> >>> Community expects a proper action from ICG, >>> >>> The issue is not so difficult >>> >>> Pls do not make a mass of that. >>> >>> Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits >>> >>> Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not to diverge >>> >>> This is an important matter left from Singapore >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : >>> Kavouss: >>> >>> We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. >>> >>> As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... >>> >>> I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >>> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM >>> To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] >>> CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >>> >>> Dear Joseph >>> Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. >>> Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >>> > >>> > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. >>> > >>> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > >>> > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] >>> > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM >>> > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] >>> > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >>> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Choices: >>> >> >>> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. >>> >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >>> >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. >>> >> >>> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. >>> > >>> > >>> > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). >>> > >>> > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. >>> > >>> > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. >>> > >>> > Patrik >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Internal-cg mailing list >>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Apr 18 05:28:25 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 07:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> Message-ID: > On 16 apr 2015, at 10:39, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Pls read the text carefully > It says ICG may decides to send comments received from .... To OCs > Consequently it is the ICG who examine the case and decides on the beed or otherwise to respond > I do nit want to exclude ICG from the process and just leave it as an option to OCd to reply or not . First, as Alissa writes, I do not understand why we spend more time on this. Secondly, what I wrote was that both ICG and OC can if they so wish respond to the comments coming in. But they can also both ignore it. We, ICG, can be as many people wrote, be inspired by the comments and use comments just like any kind of input as the basis for questions to an OC. But neither OC not ICG has a mandatory obligation to respond to every comment. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Apr 18 11:50:57 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 07:50:57 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: References: <1F3C514F-D789-466C-AF79-F3E096F9D68B@cooperw.in> <44A663E7-569C-4E28-A06F-329599DAC359@cooperw.in> <6432412528c84fe8b791c4018684723c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <552EE1AE.3050104@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55324521.9060602@oracle.com> This issue is not critical in the end, it is more a question of respect for commentators outside of the communities (they may not have understood the comment process or where best to address their comment) and process transparency than a game changer and we have spent beyond too many cycles on it. This will be my last post on the matter. The issue is solely this: When we get a comment related to an OC proposal we will always determine whether to act upon it or not. If we decide to take an action related to it, whether in the form we received it or as the basis for an other question, the OCs must respond to our request, because a failure to respond will be part of our evaluation of the sufficiency of their process. The question remains with what happens to the other comments we receive related to an OC proposal. We can treat them as irrelevant or dead issues and do nothing. Or we can can forward them to the OC as the group they were likely intended to reach. I strongly favor the latter because it leads to transparency as espouses a "no wrong door" approach - wherever you comment it will be routed to the correct group. That group will have the need to determine whether and how to respond. One driving force for me in this process is that what results be a representation of consensus and commentators throughout the process have their concerns addressed where possible. The more concerns never reaching their target or never addressed, the greater likelihood that those comments may be resubmitted to NTIA as failures of the process to address community concerns. The solution I proposed a the meeting, which had a favorable discussion at the time it was presented, was as follows (order shifted to clarify concerns of this impacting our discretion plus elimination of the courtesy acknowledgement of receipt): 1. We review comments to determine if they raise issues on which the ICG should take action. Where they do, we raise the issues as we see fit requesting the OC to reply us. 2. In order to promote transparency of the process and to assure that opportunities to enhance understanding or to build community consensus are not squandered, we froward or make available to communities (excluding spam) the comments we receive that are relevant to their proposal to address as they feel appropriate. That's it for me on this issue, I can accept whatever the group decides. Best- Joe On 4/18/2015 1:28 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 10:39, Kavouss Arasteh > > wrote: >> >> Pls read the text carefully >> It says ICG may decides to send comments received from .... To OCs >> Consequently it is the ICG who examine the case and decides on the >> beed or otherwise to respond >> I do nit want to exclude ICG from the process and just leave it as an >> option to OCd to reply or not . > > First, as Alissa writes, I do not understand why we spend more time on > this. > > Secondly, what I wrote was that both ICG and OC can if they so wish > respond to the comments coming in. But they can also both ignore it. > > We, ICG, can be as many people wrote, be inspired by the comments and > use comments just like any kind of input as the basis for questions to > an OC. > > But neither OC not ICG has a mandatory obligation to respond to every > comment. > > Patrik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Apr 18 12:38:28 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> Message-ID: <241f7afe9e8b4838b994913514dac50a@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust .. Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense week of meetings .. I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be able to join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier .. Appreciate being excused .. Kind regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling Alissa Thank you for the message Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give the choice ti OCs to reply or not Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and copy the reply to ICG This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight that process as indicated in our charter. We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find a solution. Regards Ksvouss Sent from my iPhone On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper > wrote: If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what changes you all have agreed. Thanks, Alissa On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: Dear Alissa, Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement. My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to take that into account I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning We need to be practical and comply with our charter. Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done. The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must be treated properly. Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the questions Then what is the role of the ICG? Community expects a proper action from ICG, The issue is not so difficult Pls do not make a mass of that. Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not to diverge This is an important matter left from Singapore Regards Kavouss 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff >: Kavouss: We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling Dear Joseph Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff > wrote: > > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff > wrote: >> >> Choices: >> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. >> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. > > > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). > > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. > > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. > > Patrik > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Apr 18 12:38:42 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:38:42 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Numbers community FAQ and diagram In-Reply-To: <4DA47B14-76DA-4133-A28E-4A3D1C291446@LStAmour.org> References: <20150414200427.GF29840@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4DA47B14-76DA-4133-A28E-4A3D1C291446@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <8c74c6a042df4760885b3321bcbf76a2@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> I would also like to add my thanks to Alan for sharing and to the whole numbers community for compiling this FAQ .. Kind regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 5:08 PM To: Alan Barrett Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Numbers community FAQ and diagram Alan, this is very clear and very well done. Thank you to you and all your colleagues. Best, Lynn On Apr 14, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > The numbers community has published a FAQ on their proposal. See > . > > The answer to the question "What new "oversight" mechanism is being proposed?" includes a diagram of accountability mechanisms, both before and after the transition. This diagram is intended to address the request that was raised by Kavouss Arasteh, and action item 3 from ICG call #14. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 14:01:23 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 16:01:23 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <241f7afe9e8b4838b994913514dac50a@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> <241f7afe9e8b4838b994913514dac50a@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: Dear Joe, I fully agree with your way forward. May you kindly edit the former draft in re ordering the text and deleting the element of giving option to OCs to elect to reply or not and replace it by your text to which I fully agree Kavouss 2015-04-18 14:38 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail : > Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust .. > > Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense week of > meetings .. > > I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be able to > join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier .. > > > > Appreciate being excused .. > > > > Kind regards > > --Manal > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf Of > *Kavouss Arasteh > *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM > *To:* Alissa Cooper > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > > > Alissa > > Thank you for the message > > Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give the choice > ti OCs to reply or not > > Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice should > exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. i.e. Reply > directly to the comments received which usually would not be the case in > practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send the comments to OC concerned > and asks that entity to reply and copy the reply to ICG > > This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight that > process as indicated in our charter. > > We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. > > Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. > > I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find a > solution. > > Regards > > Ksvouss > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document directly > and post an update to the list and dropbox, that would be great. Personally > I don’t fully understand what changes you all have agreed. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > > > > Dear Alissa, > > Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for > several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT > CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That > rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that > consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which > established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300 > e-email message be ignored > > We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement. > > My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to > take that into account > > I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we > have decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer > to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning > > We need to be practical and comply with our charter. > > Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply, > the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further > analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done. > > The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . > > Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must > be treated properly. > > Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the > questions > > Then what is the role of the ICG? > > Community expects a proper action from ICG, > > The issue is not so difficult > > Pls do not make a mass of that. > > Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits > > Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not > to diverge > > This is an important matter left from Singapore > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > > > 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : > > Kavouss: > > We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree > our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. > > As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if > a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has > been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow > up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question > on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to > answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. > We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... > > I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward > questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... > > Joe > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM > To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [ > internal-cg at ianacg.org] > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > Dear Joseph > Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment > received needs to be replied and not all comments. > Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff > wrote: > > > > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. > > > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] > > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM > > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] > > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling > > > > > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff > wrote: > >> > >> Choices: > >> > >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow > up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the > proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. > >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the > joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. > As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the > chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the > community. > >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions > we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping > watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding > comments. > >> > >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b > and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and > assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address > them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that > those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their > questions heard. > > > > > > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can > at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And > b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was > adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). > > > > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward > questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on > whatever is sent in. > > > > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming > in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. > > > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Sat Apr 18 19:42:03 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) In-Reply-To: <91590858-804A-4DBD-B61E-BFAD917AEA7E@cooperw.in> References: <00cc01d07213$3fa8b330$befa1990$@icgsec.asia> <91590858-804A-4DBD-B61E-BFAD917AEA7E@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <1EA68ED3-016F-41D9-85D8-F85A6B824B00@LStAmour.org> Thank you Jennifer, A couple of minor edits to help the clarity of: Section 5. Status for Protocol Parameters Proposal (not wishing to put words into Jari's mouth but…) Old: "Arkko reported that there for the most parts, very board agreement or even unanimous opinion during the proposal process." Suggested: "Arkko reported that there was for the most part, very broad or even unanimous agreement during the proposal process." Otherwise, I am fine with both sets of minutes. Thank you, Lynn On Apr 16, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > All, > > I’d like to get these minutes approved. Please send any edits to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> In continuation of the previous minutes approval, attached please find the following for your review: >> >> 1. 6 Feb minutes v5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw68qd2zxntuq3o/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v5.docx?dl=0 >> - I have accepted Milton’s edits to the pg. 4 first bullet point under “Discussion” since there were no oppositions to his wording. >> o “Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU.” >> - I have also reverted pg. 4 section 6 second bullet point, first sentence back to Daniel’s suggestion as agreed to in the chat log by Milton from this morning’s call. >> o "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open, transparent [and thoroughly documented] process." – language and link in the [] added by the Secretariat for additional information. >> >> 2. 11 Mar minutes v3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 >> - Edits from Lynn have been incorporated into v3. >> - Redlined sections on pg. 3 section 3 are edits the Secretariat has made to Mary’s additional language and needs approval from Mary/all. >> >> Please let me know if there are any questions. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Jennifer >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mnuduma at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 03:49:53 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 03:49:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) In-Reply-To: <1EA68ED3-016F-41D9-85D8-F85A6B824B00@LStAmour.org> References: <1EA68ED3-016F-41D9-85D8-F85A6B824B00@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <833376355.7176243.1429415393996.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Dear All,I am fine with the minutes and have no objections to approving them. Thanks. Mary On Saturday, April 18, 2015 8:43 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Thank you Jennifer, A couple of minor edits to help the clarity of:  Section 5. Status for Protocol Parameters Proposal (not wishing to put words into Jari's mouth but…) Old:  "Arkko reported that there for the most parts, very board agreement or even unanimous opinion during the proposal process." Suggested: "Arkko reported that there was for the most part, very broad or even unanimous agreement during the proposal process." Otherwise, I am fine with both sets of minutes. Thank you, Lynn On Apr 16, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > All, > > I’d like to get these minutes approved. Please send any edits to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > >> Dear All, >>  >> In continuation of the previous minutes approval, attached please find the following for your review: >>  >> 1.      6 Feb minutes v5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw68qd2zxntuq3o/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v5.docx?dl=0 >> -          I have accepted Milton’s edits to the pg. 4 first bullet point under “Discussion” since there were no oppositions to his wording. >> o  “Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU.” >> -          I have also reverted pg. 4 section 6 second bullet point, first sentence back to Daniel’s suggestion as agreed to in the chat log by Milton from this morning’s call. >> o  "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open, transparent [and thoroughly documented] process." – language and link in the [] added by the Secretariat for additional information. >>  >> 2.      11 Mar minutes v3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 >> -          Edits from Lynn have been incorporated into v3. >> -          Redlined sections on pg. 3 section 3 are edits the Secretariat has made to Mary’s additional language and needs approval from Mary/all. >>  >> Please let me know if there are any questions. >>  >> Best Regards, >>  >> Jennifer >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Sun Apr 19 23:32:29 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 02:32:29 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] illustrative diagram In-Reply-To: <887989FB-08EE-471C-8030-0B6AAC7A9843@piuha.net> References: <887989FB-08EE-471C-8030-0B6AAC7A9843@piuha.net> Message-ID: <5E625162-01BF-445F-9A90-9CAB862C580D@piuha.net> I have prepared a short presentation that describes the existing structures in the IETF system related to handling IANA topics, as well as discusses the changes (or lack thereof) with the transition. The presentation is available at http://www.ietf.org/iana-transition/ietf-iana-graphical.pdf I hope you find this useful. Feedback would be appreciated. The presentation is for informational purposes, i.e., it should not be taken as overriding anything that has been said in various RFCs about the IETF structure or handling of IANA matters, or what has been said in the IETF submission to the ICG. For instance, the presentation provides a short overview of IETF nominations committee procedures and explains why they are relevant in this case, but the actual rules about those procedures are of course in the various RFCs. Thanks, Jari Arkko -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Apr 20 17:24:05 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:24:05 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) In-Reply-To: <833376355.7176243.1429415393996.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1EA68ED3-016F-41D9-85D8-F85A6B824B00@LStAmour.org> <833376355.7176243.1429415393996.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01e601d07b8e$cfb3bd60$6f1b3820$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Attached are the two sets of minutes: - 6 Feb v6 (incorporating Lynn’s edits below) - https://www.dropbox.com/s/2iip1azbiga9vrk/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v6.docx?dl=0 - 11 Mar v4 (with Mary’s approval of the previous redline section) - https://www.dropbox.com/s/95thqhluvem6y8v/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v4.docx?dl=0 Please be reminded that any additional edits to these minutes should be sent in today (20 April) by 20:00 UTC. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:50 PM To: Lynn St.Amour; Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) Dear All, I am fine with the minutes and have no objections to approving them. Thanks. Mary On Saturday, April 18, 2015 8:43 PM, Lynn St.Amour > wrote: Thank you Jennifer, A couple of minor edits to help the clarity of: Section 5. Status for Protocol Parameters Proposal (not wishing to put words into Jari's mouth but…) Old: "Arkko reported that there for the most parts, very board agreement or even unanimous opinion during the proposal process." Suggested: "Arkko reported that there was for the most part, very broad or even unanimous agreement during the proposal process." Otherwise, I am fine with both sets of minutes. Thank you, Lynn On Apr 16, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: > All, > > I’d like to get these minutes approved. Please send any edits to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Jennifer Chung > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> In continuation of the previous minutes approval, attached please find the following for your review: >> >> 1. 6 Feb minutes v5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw68qd2zxntuq3o/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v5.docx?dl=0 >> - I have accepted Milton’s edits to the pg. 4 first bullet point under “Discussion” since there were no oppositions to his wording. >> o “Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU.” >> - I have also reverted pg. 4 section 6 second bullet point, first sentence back to Daniel’s suggestion as agreed to in the chat log by Milton from this morning’s call. >> o "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open, transparent [and thoroughly documented] process." – language and link in the [] added by the Secretariat for additional information. >> >> 2. 11 Mar minutes v3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 >> - Edits from Lynn have been incorporated into v3. >> - Redlined sections on pg. 3 section 3 are edits the Secretariat has made to Mary’s additional language and needs approval from Mary/all. >> >> Please let me know if there are any questions. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Jennifer >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v6.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 32177 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33881 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Apr 20 18:54:34 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:54:34 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF References: Message-ID: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Apr 20 18:55:37 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:55:37 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #15, April 22 - proposed agenda Message-ID: Here is a proposed agenda for call #15 on April 22: 1. Minutes approval - April 8 call minutes 2. Discussion of overlaps/implications of the CWG proposal for the other two proposals we’ve received from the RIRs and IETF 3. Future call schedule Please send suggestions for edits or additions to the mailing list. I haven’t seen any mailing list traffic indicating a need to discuss the action items below, so they are not on the agenda: > - Arkko and Barrett to provide further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list regarding the IETF and RIRs' current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction. (Discussed on calls #12, 13, and 14.) > > - If any ICG member has a specific question about the jurisdiction of the ICANN-IETF MoU that has not been previously answered either in the IETF proposal or in ICG discussions, that ICG member should send that question to the ICG mailing list. If no questions are received before call #15, this action item will be closed. (Discussed during F2F meeting #4 and calls #13 and 14.) > > - If any ICG member has a specific question about the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs) that has not been previously answered in ICG discussions, that ICG member should send that specific question to the ICG mailing list. If no questions are received before call #15, this action item will be closed. (Discussed on calls #13 and 14.) Thanks, Alissa From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 20 19:53:37 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:53:37 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I'd propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 20 20:18:54 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:18:54 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I'd propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Apr 20 20:42:18 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:42:18 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Let’s shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Apr 21 01:37:55 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:37:55 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) In-Reply-To: <01e601d07b8e$cfb3bd60$6f1b3820$@icgsec.asia> References: <1EA68ED3-016F-41D9-85D8-F85A6B824B00@LStAmour.org> <833376355.7176243.1429415393996.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <01e601d07b8e$cfb3bd60$6f1b3820$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: These have now been approved and will be posted to our site. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > Attached are the two sets of minutes: > - 6 Feb v6 (incorporating Lynn’s edits below) - https://www.dropbox.com/s/2iip1azbiga9vrk/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v6.docx?dl=0 > - 11 Mar v4 (with Mary’s approval of the previous redline section) - https://www.dropbox.com/s/95thqhluvem6y8v/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v4.docx?dl=0 > > Please be reminded that any additional edits to these minutes should be sent in today (20 April) by 20:00 UTC. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:50 PM > To: Lynn St.Amour; Alissa Cooper > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) > > Dear All, > I am fine with the minutes and have no objections to approving them. > > Thanks. > > Mary > > > > On Saturday, April 18, 2015 8:43 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > > Thank you Jennifer, > > A couple of minor edits to help the clarity of: Section 5. Status for Protocol Parameters Proposal (not wishing to put words into Jari's mouth but…) > > Old: "Arkko reported that there for the most parts, very board agreement or even unanimous opinion during the proposal process." > > Suggested: "Arkko reported that there was for the most part, very broad or even unanimous agreement during the proposal process." > > Otherwise, I am fine with both sets of minutes. > > Thank you, > > Lynn > > > On Apr 16, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > All, > > > > I’d like to get these minutes approved. Please send any edits to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> > >> In continuation of the previous minutes approval, attached please find the following for your review: > >> > >> 1. 6 Feb minutes v5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw68qd2zxntuq3o/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-v5.docx?dl=0 > >> - I have accepted Milton’s edits to the pg. 4 first bullet point under “Discussion” since there were no oppositions to his wording. > >> o “Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU.” > >> - I have also reverted pg. 4 section 6 second bullet point, first sentence back to Daniel’s suggestion as agreed to in the chat log by Milton from this morning’s call. > >> o "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open, transparent [and thoroughly documented] process." – language and link in the [] added by the Secretariat for additional information. > >> > >> 2. 11 Mar minutes v3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 > >> - Edits from Lynn have been incorporated into v3. > >> - Redlined sections on pg. 3 section 3 are edits the Secretariat has made to Mary’s additional language and needs approval from Mary/all. > >> > >> Please let me know if there are any questions. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Jennifer > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org > >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Apr 21 01:40:02 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:40:02 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3 References: Message-ID: FYI — would be good for folks to at least skim the CWG proposal before our April 22 call if you haven’t been following it closely. Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3 > Date: April 20, 2015 at 11:50:30 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > > Dear All, > > Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we’ve also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document. > > Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible. > > Also, note that we’ve incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. > > You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC. > > For your convenience I’ve attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf. > > Thanks again for all your feedback! > > Marika > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - clean - 20 April 2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 836492 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - clean - 20 April 2015.doc Type: application/msword Size: 710144 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - 20 April 2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1475693 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - 20 April 2015.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1030656 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 21 01:45:56 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comments on the ICG Forum Message-ID: <02aa01d07bd4$ea45a3a0$bed0eae0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The following comments have been posted to the ICG Forum: 17 April - "Input to CWG-Stewardship" from Richard Hill regarding .int: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00033.html 20 April - "RE: Input to CWG-Stewardship" response from Grace Abuhamad to the above comment : http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00034.html Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 21 02:06:02 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Message-ID: <02b401d07bd7$bb7a1670$326e4350$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Per Jean-Jacques' request, please find the original and revised ICG Call #14: Action Item 2: Original: Subrenat and Clark to draft a report summarizing information collected during the ICG assessment process of the operational communities’ proposals. This report can be published together with the final transition proposal and should be based on summaries of ICG questions/answers provided by the secretariat. (Discussed on calls #12 and #14.) Revised: Secretariat to add relevant data from the ICG assessment of the Names proposal, as well as any additional data necessary, to the questions/answers matrix for ICG approval. This matrix can be published together with the final transition proposal. (Discussed on calls #12 and #14.) Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:14 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear ICG Colleagues, Narelle and I volunteered to help draft a report on the questions formulated in the assessment of the proposals received. Alissa remarked that this information was already available in the form of a fully-informed matrix, set up by our Secretariat. Having reviewed the action point in light of Alissa's remarks, we suggest going along with the Secretariat's document, which will need to be completed with the relevant data from the assessment of the Names' proposal, and any additional data which may seem necessary at a later stage. In the absence of objections by Monday 20 April 2015 (end of day UTC), we request Secretariat to modify the Action Item. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Milton L Mueller" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 8 Avril 2015 18:57:58 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals If we look back at the discussion we had during call #12 that generated the action item, I think what people wanted was a report (in prose) that could accompany the final transition proposal to give an indication to the wider world of the issues the ICG discussed concerning each community’s proposal. So this would involve taking the matrix that the secretariat has produced and summarizing that information in report form. This is the task that I think Jean-Jacques and Narelle have signed up for. Personally I think we could leave the information in matrix form and it would be just as good, in which case there is no further work for Jean-Jacques and Narelle to do (assuming the secretariat can add to the matrix when we discuss the names proposal). Alissa On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 07:23:48 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:23:48 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Alissa, Thank you for message Milton Tks for your kind offer Dear All, I suggest to difer the discussion to the next call Kavouss 2015-04-20 22:42 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead > the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be > 1 + 3 > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > *To:* 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all > of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am > supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an > appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss > on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I > was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > *Importance:* High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal > for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body > we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of > questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking > about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton > has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April > 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, > but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *Grace Abuhamad > > *Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement* > *Date: *April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following > key dates. *It is important for you to circulate this information to your > communities to make sure they are informed.* The announcement for the > Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list > when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now > *cancelled* (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send > the cancellation notice. > > *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > > - *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the draft > on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to > review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > - *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal > (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > - *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. *Note* > : *This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of > 30 days)*. > - *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high > intensity meetings) > - *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on > Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Tue Apr 21 08:46:47 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:46:47 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I'll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let's shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I'd propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Tue Apr 21 11:25:16 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:25:16 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: I think it would be good to at least get started on our call on this. Jari On 21 Apr 2015, at 11:46, Martin Boyle wrote: > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > • Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > • Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > • Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > • Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > • Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From fmniebel at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 13:15:22 2015 From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:15:22 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Agree that we should start Michael On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > I think it would be good to at least get started on our call on this. > > Jari > > On 21 Apr 2015, at 11:46, Martin Boyle > wrote: > > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > > To: Milton L Mueller > > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead > the discussion, please speak up. > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should > be 1 + 3 > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Milton L Mueller > > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all > of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am > supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an > appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > > I’d propose the following options: > > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss > on the call > > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I > was going to be able to do. > > 4. 1 + 4 > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > Importance: High > > > > Hi all, > > > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal > for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body > we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of > questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking > about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton > has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April > 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, > but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > > > Alissa > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > > > Dear all, > > > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the > following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information > to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for > the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the > list when posted. > > > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now > cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the > cancellation notice. > > > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > > • Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the > draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, > Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 > UTC. > > • Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal > (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > > • Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. > Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of > 30 days). > > • Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high > intensity meetings) > > • Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on > Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > > Grace > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 13:29:05 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:29:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Dear All Yes we should start but first we have to give a glance to a volumious doc. Then we briefly discuss the course of action but not review the doc. Kavouss 2015-04-21 15:15 GMT+02:00 michael niebel : > Agree that we should start > > Michael > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > >> I think it would be good to at least get started on our call on this. >> >> Jari >> >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 11:46, Martin Boyle >> wrote: >> >> > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >> > >> > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Alissa Cooper >> > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 >> > To: Milton L Mueller >> > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >> RIRs/IETF >> > >> > Let’s shoot for 1+3. >> > >> > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead >> the discussion, please speak up. >> > >> > Alissa >> > >> > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> > >> > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should >> be 1 + 3 >> > >> > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Milton L Mueller >> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >> > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >> RIRs/IETF >> > >> > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss >> all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am >> supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an >> appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >> > I’d propose the following options: >> > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss >> on the call >> > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >> > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I >> was going to be able to do. >> > 4. 1 + 4 >> > >> > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Alissa Cooper >> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >> > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >> RIRs/IETF >> > Importance: High >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names >> proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a >> coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an >> informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to >> consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public >> comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our >> upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG >> proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before >> our call. >> > >> > Alissa >> > >> > >> > Begin forwarded message: >> > >> > >> > From: Grace Abuhamad >> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement >> > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >> > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >> > Cc: Brenda Brewer >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the >> following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information >> to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for >> the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the >> list when posted. >> > >> > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now >> cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the >> cancellation notice. >> > >> > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. >> > >> > Timeline for the upcoming week: >> > • Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the >> draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, >> Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 >> UTC. >> > • Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal >> (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >> > • Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. >> Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of >> 30 days). >> > • Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high >> intensity meetings) >> > • Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on >> Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >> > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >> > Grace >> > _______________________________________________ >> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Internal-cg mailing list >> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 21 13:49:30 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:49:30 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER - ICG Call #15 - 22 April 2015, 13:00-14:00 UTC Message-ID: <009c01d07c39$fed49870$fc7dc950$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #15 is scheduled for tomorrow: **Wednesday, 22 April 2015** at 13:00-14:00 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://tinyurl.com/k7f4xqe Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-fourteenth-and-fifteenth-conference-cal ls/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room, please let me know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda proposed by Alissa: 1. Minutes approval - April 8 call minutes 2. Discussion of overlaps/implications of the CWG proposal for the other two proposals we've received from the RIRs and IETF 3. Future call schedule As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thanks, Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Tue Apr 21 13:55:15 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:55:15 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3734C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Hi Kavouss, all, As you say, a voluminous document that is still not quite final! It might be worth while a couple of minutes to talk about the approach (and I attach a diagram from the legal advisors that shows the way the different elements of the plan fit together) as this might help us identify the way forward – or at least orient us on where issues might need to be addressed. If that’s in accordance with others’ ideas, I’ll approach it in that way. Best Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 21 April 2015 14:29 To: michael niebel Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Dear All Yes we should start but first we have to give a glance to a volumious doc. Then we briefly discuss the course of action but not review the doc. Kavouss 2015-04-21 15:15 GMT+02:00 michael niebel >: Agree that we should start Michael On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jari Arkko > wrote: I think it would be good to at least get started on our call on this. Jari On 21 Apr 2015, at 11:46, Martin Boyle > wrote: > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > • Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > • Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > • Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > • Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > • Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 207178155_2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 22516 bytes Desc: 207178155_2.pdf URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 21 14:07:12 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:07:12 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) In-Reply-To: References: <1EA68ED3-016F-41D9-85D8-F85A6B824B00@LStAmour.org> <833376355.7176243.1429415393996.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <01e601d07b8e$cfb3bd60$6f1b3820$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <00ae01d07c3c$77e431b0$67ac9510$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the approved minutes (6 Feb, 11 Mar) posted on the ICG web site here: http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ Best Regards, Jennifer From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 9:38 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: Mary Uduma; Lynn St.Amour; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) These have now been approved and will be posted to our site. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Jennifer Chung > wrote: Dear All, Attached are the two sets of minutes: - 6 Feb v6 (incorporating Lynn's edits below) - https://www.dropbox.com/s/2iip1azbiga9vrk/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015-v6.docx?dl=0 - 11 Mar v4 (with Mary's approval of the previous redline section) - https://www.dropbox.com/s/95thqhluvem6y8v/minutes-teleconference-11-march-20 15-draft-v4.docx?dl=0 Please be reminded that any additional edits to these minutes should be sent in today (20 April) by 20:00 UTC. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:50 PM To: Lynn St.Amour; Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG minutes to be approved (6 Feb, 11 Mar) Dear All, I am fine with the minutes and have no objections to approving them. Thanks. Mary On Saturday, April 18, 2015 8:43 PM, Lynn St.Amour < Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote: Thank you Jennifer, A couple of minor edits to help the clarity of: Section 5. Status for Protocol Parameters Proposal (not wishing to put words into Jari's mouth but.) Old: "Arkko reported that there for the most parts, very board agreement or even unanimous opinion during the proposal process." Suggested: "Arkko reported that there was for the most part, very broad or even unanimous agreement during the proposal process." Otherwise, I am fine with both sets of minutes. Thank you, Lynn On Apr 16, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in> wrote: > All, > > I'd like to get these minutes approved. Please send any edits to the list by April 20 at 20:00 UTC. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec.asia> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> In continuation of the previous minutes approval, attached please find the following for your review: >> >> 1. 6 Feb minutes v5: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qw68qd2zxntuq3o/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015-v5.docx?dl=0 >> - I have accepted Milton's edits to the pg. 4 first bullet point under "Discussion" since there were no oppositions to his wording. >> o "Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU." >> - I have also reverted pg. 4 section 6 second bullet point, first sentence back to Daniel's suggestion as agreed to in the chat log by Milton from this morning's call. >> o "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open, transparent [and thoroughly documented] process." - language and link in the [] added by the Secretariat for additional information. >> >> 2. 11 Mar minutes v3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cckhjdb1oeyjlz2/minutes-teleconference-11-march-20 15-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 >> - Edits from Lynn have been incorporated into v3. >> - Redlined sections on pg. 3 section 3 are edits the Secretariat has made to Mary's additional language and needs approval from Mary/all. >> >> Please let me know if there are any questions. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Jennifer >> ___________________________________________ ____ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 21 16:02:19 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:02:19 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He'd be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. Here is my memo (attached) Disclaimer: it's my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don't have to wade through 120 pages.... From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I'll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let's shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I'd propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWGsummary-PTI.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 103211 bytes Desc: CWGsummary-PTI.pdf URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Apr 21 18:39:05 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:39:05 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7A0465C6-3002-4616-97FB-6780546B0F40@cooperw.in> Agreed. Thanks Martin for being willing to lead the discussion. And thank you Milton for drafting this memo on short order, it’s very helpful. Alissa On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. > > Here is my memo (attached) > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Tue Apr 21 19:22:22 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:22:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <7A0465C6-3002-4616-97FB-6780546B0F40@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <17301691.548.1429644137976.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Many thanks Milton for the convenient 3-page résumé ! Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Milton L Mueller" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mardi 21 Avril 2015 20:39:05 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Agreed. Thanks Martin for being willing to lead the discussion. And thank you Milton for drafting this memo on short order, it’s very helpful. Alissa On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. Here is my memo (attached) Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let’s shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; ' internal-cg at ianacg.org ' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I’d propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad at icann.org > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: " cwg-stewardship at icann.org " < cwg-stewardship at icann.org > Cc: Brenda Brewer < brenda.brewer at icann.org > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC . Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC : Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April : Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April : Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note : This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days) . * Thursday 23 April : Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April : Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue Apr 21 19:57:55 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:57:55 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER - ICG Call #15 - 22 April 2015, 13:00-14:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <009c01d07c39$fed49870$fc7dc950$@icgsec.asia> References: <009c01d07c39$fed49870$fc7dc950$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Colleagues: I'll do my best to attend, but this time conflicts with a personal appointment. Thanks- J. From: Jennifer Chung > Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 8:49 To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" > Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER - ICG Call #15 - 22 April 2015, 13:00-14:00 UTC Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #15 is scheduled for tomorrow: **Wednesday, 22 April 2015** at 13:00-14:00 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://tinyurl.com/k7f4xqe Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-fourteenth-and-fifteenth-conference-calls/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: [cid:image001.png at 01D07C18.76AC0A30] If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room, please let me know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda proposed by Alissa: 1. Minutes approval - April 8 call minutes 2. Discussion of overlaps/implications of the CWG proposal for the other two proposals we've received from the RIRs and IETF 3. Future call schedule As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thanks, Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Apr 22 02:02:58 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:02:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> <241f7afe9e8b4838b994913514dac50a@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <55370152.50209@oracle.com> Colleagues: I have posted a clean reformatted proposed solution for the consensus building comments in drop box and attach it to this email for your convenience. Best- Joe On 4/18/2015 10:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Joe, > I fully agree with your way forward. > May you kindly edit the former draft in re ordering the text and > deleting the element of giving option to OCs to elect to reply or not > and replace it by your text to which I fully agree > Kavouss > > 2015-04-18 14:38 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail >: > > Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust .. > > Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense > week of meetings .. > > I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be > able to join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier .. > > Appreciate being excused .. > > Kind regards > > --Manal > > *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss > Arasteh > *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM > *To:* Alissa Cooper > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments > handling > > Alissa > > Thank you for the message > > Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give > the choice ti OCs to reply or not > > Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice > should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. > i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would > not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send > the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and > copy the reply to ICG > > This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight > that process as indicated in our charter. > > We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. > > Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. > > I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find > a solution. > > Regards > > Ksvouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper > wrote: > > If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document > directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that > would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what > changes you all have agreed. > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Alissa, > > Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that > we worked for several months ago in which there was no > mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced > in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft > consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that > consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such > document which established the basis of our works and > completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored > > We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and > agreement. > > My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and > you need to take that into account > > I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with > what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those > agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was > totally disagreed from the very beginning > > We need to be practical and comply with our charter. > > Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it > requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be > sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided > by ICG that action should be done. > > The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . > > Comments received should not left as an optional process by > OCs they must be treated properly. > > Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to > answer the questions > > Then what is the role of the ICG? > > Community expects a proper action from ICG, > > The issue is not so difficult > > Pls do not make a mass of that. > > Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits > > Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to > converge and not to diverge > > This is an important matter left from Singapore > > Regards > > Kavouss > > 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff > >: > > Kavouss: > > We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to > ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must > come to us. > > As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and > transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC > propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals > or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the > spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an > OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they > need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize > community consensus. We need maximum transparency and > consensus across all of our efforts... > > I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to > forward questions that should have better been addressed to > the OC... > > Joe > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com > ) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com > ] > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM > To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com > ] > CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se > ]; internal-cg at ianacg.org > [internal-cg at ianacg.org > ] > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments > handling > > Dear Joseph > Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or > not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. > Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff > > wrote: > > > > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. > > > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown > (www.nitrodesk.com ) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se ] > > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM > > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com > ] > > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org > [internal-cg at ianacg.org ] > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community > comments handling > > > > > >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff > > wrote: > >> > >> Choices: > >> > >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our > own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related > question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability > to do at all times. > >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our > process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to > properly answer the question. As such we could forward the > question to the correct community, on the chance that the > asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. > >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the > questions we receive will be available online. If a community > commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't > have to worry about forwarding comments. > >> > >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities > under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest > transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those > groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door > approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar > with the consultation process are also able to get their > questions heard. > > > > > > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks > that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically > because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the > OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well > as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). > > > > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might > ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the > list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. > > > > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ > comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ > comment to the OC's for action. > > > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Community Comments Handling-21Apr15-KA-MU-JHAclean-reformatted.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19035 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Apr 22 09:00:03 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:00:03 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <55370152.50209@oracle.com> References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> <241f7afe9e8b4838b994913514dac50a@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> <55370152.50209@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55376313.1070506@ripe.net> This procedure looks to me like one of these just workable compromises. However, it is not important enough to spend more time on it. So I will not oppose it. The chair will have to support the secretariat in their decisions what is spam and how to make specific comments available to which communities. I suspect that some of these decisions will not be straightforward. and we will receive some criticism for them no matter what. I wish we could have avoided this work and these decisions by omitting (2b). We will also have to clarify to the communities that the request for updates in (3) is not intended as a request to address each and every comment nor to produce statistics on how many comments they responded to etc etc. (2a) is the important part. Daniel On 22.04.15 4:02 , joseph alhadeff wrote: > Colleagues: > > I have posted a clean reformatted proposed solution for the consensus > building comments in drop box and attach it to this email for your > convenience. > > Best- > > Joe > > On 4/18/2015 10:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Dear Joe, >> I fully agree with your way forward. >> May you kindly edit the former draft in re ordering the text and >> deleting the element of giving option to OCs to elect to reply or not >> and replace it by your text to which I fully agree >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-18 14:38 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail > >: >> >> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust .. >> >> Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense >> week of meetings .. >> >> I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be >> able to join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier .. >> >> >> >> Appreciate being excused .. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> --Manal >> >> >> >> *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss >> Arasteh >> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM >> *To:* Alissa Cooper >> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments >> handling >> >> >> >> Alissa >> >> Thank you for the message >> >> Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give >> the choice ti OCs to reply or not >> >> Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice >> should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. >> i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would >> not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send >> the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and >> copy the reply to ICG >> >> This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight >> that process as indicated in our charter. >> >> We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. >> >> Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. >> >> I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find >> a solution. >> >> Regards >> >> Ksvouss >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper > > wrote: >> >> If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document >> directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that >> would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what >> changes you all have agreed. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa >> >> >> >> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Alissa, >> >> Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that >> we worked for several months ago in which there was no >> mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced >> in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft >> consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that >> consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such >> document which established the basis of our works and >> completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored >> >> We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and >> agreement. >> >> My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and >> you need to take that into account >> >> I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with >> what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those >> agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was >> totally disagreed from the very beginning >> >> We need to be practical and comply with our charter. >> >> Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it >> requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be >> sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided >> by ICG that action should be done. >> >> The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . >> >> Comments received should not left as an optional process by >> OCs they must be treated properly. >> >> Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to >> answer the questions >> >> Then what is the role of the ICG? >> >> Community expects a proper action from ICG, >> >> The issue is not so difficult >> >> Pls do not make a mass of that. >> >> Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits >> >> Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to >> converge and not to diverge >> >> This is an important matter left from Singapore >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> >> >> 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff >> >: >> >> Kavouss: >> >> We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to >> ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must >> come to us. >> >> As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and >> transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC >> propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals >> or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the >> spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an >> OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they >> need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize >> community consensus. We need maximum transparency and >> consensus across all of our efforts... >> >> I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to >> forward questions that should have better been addressed to >> the OC... >> >> Joe >> >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com >> ) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com >> ] >> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM >> To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com >> ] >> CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se >> ]; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> [internal-cg at ianacg.org >> ] >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments >> handling >> >> Dear Joseph >> Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or >> not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. >> Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff >> > > wrote: >> > >> > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. >> > >> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown >> (www.nitrodesk.com ) >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > >> > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se ] >> > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM >> > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com >> ] >> > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> [internal-cg at ianacg.org ] >> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community >> comments handling >> > >> > >> >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Choices: >> >> >> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our >> own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related >> question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability >> to do at all times. >> >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our >> process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to >> properly answer the question. As such we could forward the >> question to the correct community, on the chance that the >> asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >> >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the >> questions we receive will be available online. If a community >> commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't >> have to worry about forwarding comments. >> >> >> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities >> under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest >> transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those >> groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door >> approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar >> with the consultation process are also able to get their >> questions heard. >> > >> > >> > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks >> that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically >> because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the >> OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well >> as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). >> > >> > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might >> ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the >> list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. >> > >> > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ >> comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ >> comment to the OC's for action. >> > >> > Patrik >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Internal-cg mailing list >> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 09:41:18 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:41:18 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <55376313.1070506@ripe.net> References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> <241f7afe9e8b4838b994913514dac50a@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> <55370152.50209@oracle.com> <55376313.1070506@ripe.net> Message-ID: <49C8D5E1-1DC1-4E44-99AA-D4D4CB6079D0@gmail.com> Dear Daniel Dear Joseph Thanks for not opposing What you raised would be internal to us Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Apr 2015, at 11:00, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > This procedure looks to me like one of these just workable compromises. > However, it is not important enough to spend more time on it. So I will > not oppose it. > > The chair will have to support the secretariat in their decisions what > is spam and how to make specific comments available to which > communities. I suspect that some of these decisions will not be > straightforward. and we will receive some criticism for them no matter > what. I wish we could have avoided this work and these decisions by > omitting (2b). > > We will also have to clarify to the communities that the request for > updates in (3) is not intended as a request to address each and every > comment nor to produce statistics on how many comments they responded to > etc etc. > > (2a) is the important part. > > Daniel > >> On 22.04.15 4:02 , joseph alhadeff wrote: >> Colleagues: >> >> I have posted a clean reformatted proposed solution for the consensus >> building comments in drop box and attach it to this email for your >> convenience. >> >> Best- >> >> Joe >> >>> On 4/18/2015 10:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> Dear Joe, >>> I fully agree with your way forward. >>> May you kindly edit the former draft in re ordering the text and >>> deleting the element of giving option to OCs to elect to reply or not >>> and replace it by your text to which I fully agree >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-18 14:38 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail >> >: >>> >>> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust .. >>> >>> Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense >>> week of meetings .. >>> >>> I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be >>> able to join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier .. >>> >>> >>> >>> Appreciate being excused .. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> --Manal >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>> ] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss >>> Arasteh >>> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM >>> *To:* Alissa Cooper >>> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments >>> handling >>> >>> >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> Thank you for the message >>> >>> Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give >>> the choice ti OCs to reply or not >>> >>> Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice >>> should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. >>> i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would >>> not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send >>> the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and >>> copy the reply to ICG >>> >>> This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight >>> that process as indicated in our charter. >>> >>> We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. >>> >>> Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. >>> >>> I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find >>> a solution. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Ksvouss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper >> > wrote: >>> >>> If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document >>> directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that >>> would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what >>> changes you all have agreed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Alissa, >>> >>> Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that >>> we worked for several months ago in which there was no >>> mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced >>> in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft >>> consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that >>> consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such >>> document which established the basis of our works and >>> completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored >>> >>> We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and >>> agreement. >>> >>> My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and >>> you need to take that into account >>> >>> I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with >>> what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those >>> agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was >>> totally disagreed from the very beginning >>> >>> We need to be practical and comply with our charter. >>> >>> Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it >>> requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be >>> sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided >>> by ICG that action should be done. >>> >>> The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . >>> >>> Comments received should not left as an optional process by >>> OCs they must be treated properly. >>> >>> Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to >>> answer the questions >>> >>> Then what is the role of the ICG? >>> >>> Community expects a proper action from ICG, >>> >>> The issue is not so difficult >>> >>> Pls do not make a mass of that. >>> >>> Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits >>> >>> Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to >>> converge and not to diverge >>> >>> This is an important matter left from Singapore >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff >>> >: >>> >>> Kavouss: >>> >>> We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to >>> ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must >>> come to us. >>> >>> As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and >>> transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC >>> propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals >>> or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the >>> spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an >>> OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they >>> need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize >>> community consensus. We need maximum transparency and >>> consensus across all of our efforts... >>> >>> I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to >>> forward questions that should have better been addressed to >>> the OC... >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com >>> ) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com >>> ] >>> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM >>> To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com >>> ] >>> CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se >>> ]; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> [internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> ] >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments >>> handling >>> >>> Dear Joseph >>> Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or >>> not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. >>> Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff >>> >> > wrote: >>>> >>>> As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown >>> (www.nitrodesk.com ) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se ] >>>> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM >>>> To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com >>> ] >>>> CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> [internal-cg at ianacg.org ] >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community >>> comments handling >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff >>> >> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Choices: >>>>> >>>>> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our >>> own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related >>> question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability >>> to do at all times. >>>>> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our >>> process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to >>> properly answer the question. As such we could forward the >>> question to the correct community, on the chance that the >>> asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >>>>> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the >>> questions we receive will be available online. If a community >>> commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't >>> have to worry about forwarding comments. >>>>> >>>>> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities >>> under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest >>> transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those >>> groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door >>> approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar >>> with the consultation process are also able to get their >>> questions heard. >>>> >>>> >>>> We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks >>> that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically >>> because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the >>> OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well >>> as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). >>>> >>>> I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might >>> ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the >>> list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. >>>> >>>> But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ >>> comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ >>> comment to the OC's for action. >>>> >>>> Patrik >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Wed Apr 22 14:07:28 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:07:28 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] In-Reply-To: <1a3823f2c458451abb0eca054b58b089@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <00d901d07216$dd0bcf10$97236d30$@icgsec.asia> <010201d07220$55189a20$ff49ce60$@icgsec.asia> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286B45@ACCAN01.accan.local> <1a3823f2c458451abb0eca054b58b089@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCD@ACCAN01.accan.local> Thanks Milton - this approach makes sense. Narelle From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015 4:49 AM To: Narelle Clark; Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Narelle: The minutes can say "Item was not resolved." Then we can take it up at the next meeting or on the list - IF someone wants it on the agenda It makes no sense, however, to say classify as an "action item" an unresolved discussion. I hope we can agree on that simple point. This discussion is no longer about "the specific topic" that triggered one of the endless loops. It was about how calling non-action items action items can confuse people and waste time. --MM From: Narelle Clark [mailto:narelle.clark at accan.org.au] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:16 AM To: Jennifer Chung; Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] I'm not convinced that is the right thing to do... I suspect a better approach is to say in the meeting: "okay, we are not resolving this item within the time available, shall we: 1. Identify the open explicit question 2. Designate an individual to track status of the question" Then we would track the status of the open explicit question. In this particular instance, my personal view is that the specific topic was answered. Happy to be proven wrong. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2015 3:21 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Hi Milton, Noted- the Secretariat will remove references to continued discussion as an 'action item' going forward. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:00 PM To: 'Jennifer Chung'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: RE: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] OK, thanks. In the future, I would suggest that we not classify "let's continue discussion of on the list as an "action item." ;-) --MM From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:13 PM To: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals] Hi Milton, Call 13, Action Item 3 stems from the discussion from pg 2-3 of the 11 Mar minutes v3, attached and reproduced below in full: * Arasteh reiterated his request to clarify the jurisdiction issue regarding the current IETF-ICANN MoU. He further requested clarification on the management of the coordination of the three operational communities as referenced in the protocol parameters proposal (pg 13, section IV). o Regarding Arasteh's first point, Arkko stated that it was his recollection that the jurisdiction issue was resolved during the face-to-face meeting, and that it was clarified by Arkko and Housley that IAB is the final arbiter for any issues between ICANN and IETF. Arkko stated that the ICG agreed (and have sent) a question to the operational communities relating to the IPR (domain names and trademarks of iana.org). o Regarding Arasteh's second point, Arkko stated that coordination between the three communities in the IETF process is described in various RFCs and has been a point-to-point coordination between the communities that has occurred many times without issue. * Arasteh requested that Arkko put the above explanation in writing for clarification and discussion. Arasteh further emphasized that the jurisdiction issue is a legal issue that should be properly addressed, and the current answer of 'IAB' is insufficient in his view. * Arkko stated that the IETF community has produced a proposal that explains the IETF process, including accountability mechanisms, and that the community's opinion is clearly reflected in the document. Arkko offered to provide further information in an email to the internal-cg mailing list regarding practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal), but emphasized that he cannot change the protocol parameters' proposal itself. * Adobe Connect chat: Mundy and Housley agreed with Arkko regarding his view that the ICG members cannot change the community proposal. * El Bashir suggested that the ICG continue discussion of this matter on the internal-cg mailing list Action Item 3: The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarifications re the above. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:45 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Jennifer This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments. However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals Dear All, As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item: ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals. Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Apr 22 14:21:51 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:21:51 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires Message-ID: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> Alissa, thank you Alissa for confirming our agreement that ICG will not take any formal actions based on the forthcoming cwg/names proposal or its draft versions in Buenos Aires. I will have to make some hard decisions regarding work priorities and they may very well prevent me from attending Buenos Aires in person. Of course I expect a lot of discussion to go on at that f2f meeting. However it is important to me to know that formal actions will be taken at subsequent meetings. Daniel From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Wed Apr 22 14:24:11 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:24:11 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> References: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> I don't think we've scheduled any meetings for after BA yet. I think this would be wise. Didn't we agree to do so within two weeks? Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2015 12:22 AM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Alissa Cooper Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires Alissa, thank you Alissa for confirming our agreement that ICG will not take any formal actions based on the forthcoming cwg/names proposal or its draft versions in Buenos Aires. I will have to make some hard decisions regarding work priorities and they may very well prevent me from attending Buenos Aires in person. Of course I expect a lot of discussion to go on at that f2f meeting. However it is important to me to know that formal actions will be taken at subsequent meetings. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Apr 22 14:24:45 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:24:45 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Inviting the CWG Chair Message-ID: <5537AF2D.2010100@ripe.net> Regarding Kavouss's recommendation to invite the CWG chair to brief us: I urge us to consider the precedent and the pressure that this may create to issue similar invitations to others. Such invitations may very well complicate our task and the time it takes. Remember that we decided not to give the floor to the CRISP chair (Izumi) during our previous f2f meeting. Inviting the CWG chair now would not be consistent. We have more than two dozen people drawn from the various communities on the ICG itself. We should be able to get all the information we need from within the group without holding 'public hearings'. In case we need more than that, we can always agree to ask specific questions to the CWG as we have done before with the other operational communities. We should not invite the CWG chair at this time. Let's not create more of a zoo than necessary. Daniel From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Apr 22 14:29:52 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:29:52 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <5537B060.1030001@ripe.net> On 22.04.15 16:24 , Narelle Clark wrote: > I don't think we've scheduled any meetings for after BA yet. I think this would be wise. Didn't we agree to do so within two weeks? Excellent point. Time for a doodle poll including a look at f2f opportunities. We can always cancel in the event that CWG hits a snag. Daniel From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Apr 22 14:30:02 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <5537B06A.8010206@oracle.com> Agreed. On 4/22/2015 10:24 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > I don't think we've scheduled any meetings for after BA yet. I think this would be wise. Didn't we agree to do so within two weeks? > > > Narelle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2015 12:22 AM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Alissa Cooper > Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires > > Alissa, > > thank you Alissa for confirming our agreement that ICG will not take any formal actions based on the forthcoming cwg/names proposal or its draft versions in Buenos Aires. > > I will have to make some hard decisions regarding work priorities and they may very well prevent me from attending Buenos Aires in person. > > Of course I expect a lot of discussion to go on at that f2f meeting. > However it is important to me to know that formal actions will be taken at subsequent meetings. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Wed Apr 22 14:40:17 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:40:17 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Naming Proposal and IPR Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A5DD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Hi Alissa, Following our call, I promised to let you know what we were saying about IPR in the CWG-Naming work. There was a small team looking at this issue and it concluded that this should be dealt with through dialogue with other communities as it is not limited to naming community. Should there be an IPR issue that is naming specific, the CWG would obtain input from the legal advisors. A call has been scheduled with chairs of CRISP team to co-ordinate, not only on this issue but also broader conversations. Hope this helps Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 22 15:15:38 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. Jennifer From: WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM To: internal-cg at icann.org Subject: CWG proposal preassessment All, in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Wed Apr 22 15:40:27 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:40:27 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> References: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment Dear All, Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. Jennifer From: WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM To: internal-cg at icann.org Subject: CWG proposal preassessment All, in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 22 15:59:50 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:59:50 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <9E11E49D-8F50-4BEF-9CDA-BAB5407B5E35@cooperw.in> +1 Thanks to Wolf-Ulrich for volunteering. Alissa On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) > > So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. > > Martin > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > Dear All, > > Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. > > Jennifer > > > From: WUKnoben > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM > To: internal-cg at icann.org > Subject: CWG proposal preassessment > > All, > > in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. > > If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 22 16:08:44 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript Message-ID: <008901d07d16$9ceee9c0$d6ccbd40$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: ICG Members Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Lynn St. Amour (IAB) Michael Niebel (GAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Russ Housley (IAB) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Alan Barrett (NRO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Apologies Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) James Bladel (GNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Manal Ismail (GAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 22 16:10:04 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript Message-ID: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. Best, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript Dear All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: ICG Members Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Lynn St. Amour (IAB) Michael Niebel (GAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Russ Housley (IAB) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Alan Barrett (NRO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Apologies Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) James Bladel (GNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Manal Ismail (GAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Call 15 chat transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 85164 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed Apr 22 16:12:08 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:12:08 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: <5537B06A.8010206@oracle.com> References: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <5537B06A.8010206@oracle.com> Message-ID: <79C6254F-0BD5-4DA7-8BB4-11803BA77805@frobbit.se> Noted. Patrik > On 22 apr 2015, at 16:30, joseph alhadeff wrote: > > Agreed. > > On 4/22/2015 10:24 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: >> I don't think we've scheduled any meetings for after BA yet. I think this would be wise. Didn't we agree to do so within two weeks? >> >> >> Narelle >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg >> Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2015 12:22 AM >> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Alissa Cooper >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires >> >> Alissa, >> >> thank you Alissa for confirming our agreement that ICG will not take any formal actions based on the forthcoming cwg/names proposal or its draft versions in Buenos Aires. >> >> I will have to make some hard decisions regarding work priorities and they may very well prevent me from attending Buenos Aires in person. >> >> Of course I expect a lot of discussion to go on at that f2f meeting. >> However it is important to me to know that formal actions will be taken at subsequent meetings. >> >> Daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 22 16:25:29 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:25:29 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) Message-ID: <00a401d07d18$f54bb150$dfe313f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, As requested on the recently concluded ICG Call 15, attached and linked are the revised minutes (6 Feb and 8 April): 6 Feb v. final-KAamendment - Per Kavouss' request, wording changes have been made to page 3, first bullet point. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/xtidwl19huupp99/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- february-2015-final-KAamendment.docx?dl=0 8 April v.3 - Per Jean-Jacques' request, notes have been added to page 2, and the full text of the revised Action Item added to page 6. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1hd4ui210xx2jq/minutes-teleconference-8-april-201 5-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 Please let me know if these sets of minutes are approved for publishing. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 45667 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-final-KAamendment.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 32158 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Wed Apr 22 17:01:50 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:01:50 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Hi Kavouss, There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. The NTIA has a number of roles - identified in the document which went to consultation in December. I'm sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA's role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender. One key part of the CWG's discussion has been focussed on separability - a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings. In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI - where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN. The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract. For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: * Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries; * Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries; * Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions; and * Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list. There's also a lot of detail I have not covered.) However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented. Hope this helps Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glaser at cgi.br Wed Apr 22 17:29:54 2015 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:29:54 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript In-Reply-To: <008901d07d16$9ceee9c0$d6ccbd40$@icgsec.asia> References: <008901d07d16$9ceee9c0$d6ccbd40$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <5537DA92.6020100@cgi.br> I connect late but was present => Hartmut Glaser ======================================== On 4/22/15 1:08 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear All, > > Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll > call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any > discrepancies: > > ICG Members > > Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > > Paul Wilson (NRO) > > Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > > Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > > Alissa Cooper (IETF) > > Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > > Jari Arkko (IETF) > > Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > > Demi Getschko (ISOC) > > Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > > Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > > Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > > Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > > Michael Niebel (GAC) > > Narelle Clark (ISOC) > > Russ Housley (IAB) > > Russ Mundy (SSAC) > > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > > Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > > Alan Barrett (NRO) > > Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > > Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > > Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > > Liaisons > > Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > > Apologies > > Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > > James Bladel (GNSO) > > Milton Mueller (GNSO) > > Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > > Manal Ismail (GAC) > > Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > > Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > > Thomas Schneider (GAC) > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 22 17:39:51 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:39:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript In-Reply-To: <5537DA92.6020100@cgi.br> References: <008901d07d16$9ceee9c0$d6ccbd40$@icgsec.asia> <5537DA92.6020100@cgi.br> Message-ID: <00eb01d07d23$579a4600$06ced200$@icgsec.asia> Thank you Hartmut. We have corrected this below and will reflect it on the minutes for Call 15. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Hartmut Richard Glaser [mailto:glaser at cgi.br] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:30 PM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript I connect late but was present => Hartmut Glaser ======================================== On 4/22/15 1:08 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: Dear All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: ICG Members Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Lynn St. Amour (IAB) Michael Niebel (GAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Russ Housley (IAB) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Alan Barrett (NRO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Apologies Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) James Bladel (GNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Manal Ismail (GAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 18:01:56 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:01:56 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Dear Martin, Tks for explanation The first part of the message " In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI " is not clearly mentioned in CWG where as it was especifically mentioned in Legal Memo dated 04 April as I did cite in previous message . For the rest I have the same understanding as your Consequently, the part that ICANN WILL PERFORM THE CURRENT ROLE OF NTIA needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the CSC paragraph e.g. While ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANNm, CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. This paraphrasing is necessary to avoid misinterpreting the Roles of icann AND THE rOLE of CSC. It is always good to talk with Professional that nicely, quietly and respectfully provide the clarification. Aggressive Approach does not work at least with me. I have never ever yeilded to any pressure at all and will not do it Tks again it was a kind and helpful clarification. Regards Kavouss . 2015-04-22 19:01 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle : > Hi Kavouss, > > > > There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of > the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. > > > > The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to > consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was > looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate > and re-tender. > > > > One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a > role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the > role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to > be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet > obligations and failing to remedy the failings. > > > > In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA > responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – > where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions > operator, the IANA division in ICANN. > > > > The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities > associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that > it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works > with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the > decision on the future of the contract. > > > > For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: > > • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to > the registries; > > • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the > registries; > > • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level > agreements and other operational conditions; and > > • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on > structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the > example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. > > (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive > list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) > > However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be > implemented. > > > > Hope this helps > > > > Martin > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fmniebel at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 18:20:53 2015 From: fmniebel at gmail.com (FMNiebel) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:20:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <8100AC2B-7A94-4168-A4BE-54CC3AD113EB@gmail.com> Thank you Martin, useful clarification Michael > Am 22.04.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Martin Boyle : > > Hi Kavouss, > > There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. > > The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender. > > One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings. > > In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN. > > The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract. > > For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: > • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries; > • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries; > • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions; and > • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. > (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) > However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented. > > Hope this helps > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Apr 22 19:07:18 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:07:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) In-Reply-To: <00a401d07d18$f54bb150$dfe313f0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <32751101.935.1429729636545.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Jennifer, I suggest you add a few words in the amended part of the list of Action Items (SUGGESTED ADDITION IN BOLD): "Action Item 2 REVISED on 20/04/15: SUBRENAT AND CLARK HAVING AGREED THAT THE MATRIX PROVIDED BY SECRETARIAT IS SUFFICIENT, IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR THEM TO PRODUCE THE REPORT MENTIONED ABOVE. Secretariat to add relevant data from the ICG assessment of the Names proposal, as well as any additional data necessary, to the questions/answers matrix for ICG approval. This matrix can be published together with the final transition proposal. (Discussed on calls #12 and #14.)" Thank you. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Avril 2015 18:25:29 Objet: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) Dear All, As requested on the recently concluded ICG Call 15, attached and linked are the revised minutes (6 Feb and 8 April): 6 Feb v. final-KAamendment - Per Kavouss’ request, wording changes have been made to page 3, first bullet point. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/xtidwl19huupp99/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-final-KAamendment.docx?dl=0 8 April v.3 - Per Jean-Jacques’ request, notes have been added to page 2, and the full text of the revised Action Item added to page 6. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1hd4ui210xx2jq/minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 Please let me know if these sets of minutes are approved for publishing. Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 22 20:43:42 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:43:42 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) Message-ID: <000d01d07d3d$0635ca90$12a15fb0$@icgsec.asia> Dear Jean-Jacques, Your suggested edit has been incorporated into the attached and linked 8 April v4 minutes (page 6). https://www.dropbox.com/s/2xiw3qks1ekkeb3/minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft-v4.docx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:07 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) Dear Jennifer, I suggest you add a few words in the amended part of the list of Action Items (SUGGESTED ADDITION IN BOLD): "Action Item 2 REVISED on 20/04/15: SUBRENAT AND CLARK HAVING AGREED THAT THE MATRIX PROVIDED BY SECRETARIAT IS SUFFICIENT, IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR THEM TO PRODUCE THE REPORT MENTIONED ABOVE. Secretariat to add relevant data from the ICG assessment of the Names proposal, as well as any additional data necessary, to the questions/answers matrix for ICG approval. This matrix can be published together with the final transition proposal. (Discussed on calls #12 and #14.)" Thank you. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Avril 2015 18:25:29 Objet: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) Dear All, As requested on the recently concluded ICG Call 15, attached and linked are the revised minutes (6 Feb and 8 April): 6 Feb v. final-KAamendment - Per Kavouss’ request, wording changes have been made to page 3, first bullet point. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/xtidwl19huupp99/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-final-KAamendment.docx?dl=0 8 April v.3 - Per Jean-Jacques’ request, notes have been added to page 2, and the full text of the revised Action Item added to page 6. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1hd4ui210xx2jq/minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 Please let me know if these sets of minutes are approved for publishing. Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft-v4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 45755 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 22 21:17:53 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:17:53 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 15: Decisions taken list, Action Item list Message-ID: <002401d07d41$ccdf0ae0$669d20a0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the abovementioned two lists as follows: Decisions taken: 1. 8 April minutes: Secretariat to add the revised Action Item 2 in the minutes per Subrenat and Cooper. Approved and post after amendment. 2. 6 Feb minutes: Secretariat to amend Arasteh's statement on pg. 3 first bullet point to "...expressed his doubt with respect to the statement from..." and send to the internal-cg mailing list. 3. Any outstanding questions from the call to be sent to the ICG mailing list for further discussion. 4. No current plans to have ICG calls in May. Calls to be scheduled if necessary at the end of May if there is activity on mailing list or if there are volunteers to do an initial review of the Names proposal out for public comment. 5. No plans to take any formal decisions/conclusions re CWG-IANA proposal at the ICANN BA meeting. Action Item: 1. Cooper to collect an informal list from the ICG within this week of questions and issues to send to IETF/RIRs to flag for them to comment on the Names proposal during the public comment period. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Apr 22 21:32:19 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:32:19 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Adobe Connect Technical difficulties during ICG Call 15 Message-ID: <003501d07d43$d0e7aff0$72b70fd0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, After some investigation, the queue/hands-up technical difficulties experienced during ICG Call 15 looks to have been caused by the disabling and enabling of the Adobe Connect microphones which was done to cut out the background noise/echo. We will endeavor to prevent this from happening in future calls and apologize for the inconvenience caused. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 22:07:06 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:07:06 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Adobe Connect Technical difficulties during ICG Call 15 In-Reply-To: <003501d07d43$d0e7aff0$72b70fd0$@icgsec.asia> References: <003501d07d43$d0e7aff0$72b70fd0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Dear Jennifer Tks for clarification. I do not know whether it was a real or artificial problem as the floor was given to few people VERY OFTEN However, I was preprived to provide me comments and had to ask through an unqueue manner I was badly treated for which I am not comfortable. If the Queuing system does not work the meeting should be postponed till it comes back. Prevailing atmosphere in ICG is not normal Regards Kavouss 2015-04-22 23:32 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Chung : > Dear All, > > > > After some investigation, the queue/hands-up technical difficulties > experienced during ICG Call 15 looks to have been caused by the disabling > and enabling of the Adobe Connect microphones which was done to cut out the > background noise/echo. > > > > We will endeavor to prevent this from happening in future calls and > apologize for the inconvenience caused. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Apr 23 06:44:00 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:44:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <9E11E49D-8F50-4BEF-9CDA-BAB5407B5E35@cooperw.in> References: <9E11E49D-8F50-4BEF-9CDA-BAB5407B5E35@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <1983702921.3174485.1429771440681.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> ++1. @ Wolf and Martin. We should also follow the comments and find ways to piece together ideas being thrown up by the public.I believe the Secretariat will monitor and come up with weekly summary for the ICG.  It would be very helpful to have such in a tabular format, a) along the lines of the RFP, b) in comparison with the other OC's proposal.Mary Uduma On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 5:00 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: +1 Thanks to Wolf-Ulrich for volunteering. Alissa On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals.  Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together.  (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. Martin  From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment  Dear All, Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. Jennifer  From: WUKnobenSent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PMTo: internal-cg at icann.orgSubject: CWG proposal preassessment All, in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Apr 23 06:48:56 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:48:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Naming Proposal and IPR In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A5DD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A5DD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <1377581933.3185422.1429771736605.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> That's true Martin.Thanks, I did not have the opportunity to thank you for the brilliant summary of the work of the CWG during yesterday's call.  I wish to make use of the same for presentation to the Board of NIRA today.I hope I am free to do so. Mary Uduma On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:41 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: Hi Alissa,   Following our call, I promised to let you know what we were saying about IPR in the CWG-Naming work.  There was a small team looking at this issue and it concluded that this should be dealt with through dialogue with other communities as it is not limited to naming community. Should there be an IPR issue that is naming specific, the CWG would obtain input from the legal advisors. A call has been scheduled with chairs of CRISP team to co-ordinate, not only on this issue but also broader conversations.   Hope this helps   Martin _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Apr 23 07:12:30 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:12:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <222703347.3234088.1429773150152.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you Martin for the clarification. It helps a lot for better understanding. I wish to draw attention to the mechanism for split and the actual split  of IANA function Operator from ICANN for your further clarification.  My questions are: Is CWG proposing that ICANN can sack PTI?  Will ICANN sack the Board, Mangement or staff?  Would ICANN  register another Affiliate to carry on the IANA Functions since PTI is  not  totally independent of ICANN?Mary Uduma On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:02 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: Hi Kavouss,   There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this.    The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to consultation in December.  I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender.   One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator.  The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings.   In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN.    The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract.  Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed.  The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract.   For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: •             Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries; •             Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries; •             Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions;  and •             Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list.  There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented.   Hope this helps   Martin _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Apr 23 08:12:18 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:12:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) In-Reply-To: <000d01d07d3d$0635ca90$12a15fb0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <25283093.133.1429776736749.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Jennifer, acknowledged, with thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "Jean-Jacques' 'Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Avril 2015 22:43:42 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) Dear Jean-Jacques, Your suggested edit has been incorporated into the attached and linked 8 April v4 minutes (page 6). https://www.dropbox.com/s/2xiw3qks1ekkeb3/minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft-v4.docx?dl=0 Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:07 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) Dear Jennifer, I suggest you add a few words in the amended part of the list of Action Items (SUGGESTED ADDITION IN BOLD): "Action Item 2 REVISED on 20/04/15: SUBRENAT AND CLARK HAVING AGREED THAT THE MATRIX PROVIDED BY SECRETARIAT IS SUFFICIENT, IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR THEM TO PRODUCE THE REPORT MENTIONED ABOVE. Secretariat to add relevant data from the ICG assessment of the Names proposal, as well as any additional data necessary, to the questions/answers matrix for ICG approval. This matrix can be published together with the final transition proposal. (Discussed on calls #12 and #14.)" Thank you. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Avril 2015 18:25:29 Objet: [Internal-cg] Revised minutes from 6 Feb (F2F Day 1) and 8 April (ICG Call 14) Dear All, As requested on the recently concluded ICG Call 15, attached and linked are the revised minutes (6 Feb and 8 April): 6 Feb v. final-KAamendment - Per Kavouss’ request, wording changes have been made to page 3, first bullet point. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/xtidwl19huupp99/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6-february-2015-final-KAamendment.docx?dl=0 8 April v.3 - Per Jean-Jacques’ request, notes have been added to page 2, and the full text of the revised Action Item added to page 6. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1hd4ui210xx2jq/minutes-teleconference-8-april-2015-draft-v3.docx?dl=0 Please let me know if these sets of minutes are approved for publishing. Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Thu Apr 23 08:46:50 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:46:50 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Names Draft: Document for Consultation Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3CBFB@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Dear Colleagues, Following our discussion yesterday, I would now like to confirm that the Cross-community working group preparing a proposal for the naming community published its draft proposal last night. The document (the 2nd draft proposal - the first was subject to consultation in December) is at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en. It is open for comments to 20 May 23.59UTC. Thanks Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Thu Apr 23 10:51:00 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:51:00 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3CF1B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Dear Kavouss, As in my earlier mail to the list today, the draft for comments has been published so it is out of our hands to make wording changes now – we need a stable document for consultation to be fair to everyone now working on their analysis and comments. However, I think that section III.A, The elements of this proposal, on pp 18 onwards has to be seen in its entirety as it goes over the different elements of the model and the relationship between them. I perhaps should have mentioned yesterday that the names of the different elements have changed in drafts from those given in the chart I used to talk us through the document. In the consultation draft, “periodic review function” or PRF on the chart became the “IANA function review” or IFR: while the proposal is for the reviews to take place every five years, it is possible for a special review to be set up, so the term periodic does not quite match with the proposal. Otherwise I think I did manage to keep to current terminology. Best Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Sent: 22 April 2015 19:02 To: Martin Boyle Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: ICG Call: NTIA Role Dear Martin, Tks for explanation The first part of the message " In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI " is not clearly mentioned in CWG where as it was especifically mentioned in Legal Memo dated 04 April as I did cite in previous message . For the rest I have the same understanding as your Consequently, the part that ICANN WILL PERFORM THE CURRENT ROLE OF NTIA needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the CSC paragraph e.g. While ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANNm, CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. This paraphrasing is necessary to avoid misinterpreting the Roles of icann AND THE rOLE of CSC. It is always good to talk with Professional that nicely, quietly and respectfully provide the clarification. Aggressive Approach does not work at least with me. I have never ever yeilded to any pressure at all and will not do it Tks again it was a kind and helpful clarification. Regards Kavouss . 2015-04-22 19:01 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle >: Hi Kavouss, There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender. One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings. In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN. The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract. For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries; • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries; • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions; and • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented. Hope this helps Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 12:10:49 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:10:49 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3CF1B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3CF1B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Dear Martin Tks again. I agree with you Have nice time Kavouss 2015-04-23 12:51 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle : > Dear Kavouss, > > > > As in my earlier mail to the list today, the draft for comments has been > published so it is out of our hands to make wording changes now – we need a > stable document for consultation to be fair to everyone now working on > their analysis and comments. However, I think that section III.A, The > elements of this proposal, on pp 18 onwards has to be seen in its entirety > as it goes over the different elements of the model and the relationship > between them. > > > > I perhaps should have mentioned yesterday that the names of the different > elements have changed in drafts from those given in the chart I used to > talk us through the document. In the consultation draft, “periodic review > function” or PRF on the chart became the “IANA function review” or IFR: > while the proposal is for the reviews to take place every five years, it is > possible for a special review to be set up, so the term periodic does not > quite match with the proposal. Otherwise I think I did manage to keep to > current terminology. > > > > Best > > > > > > Martin > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 22 April 2015 19:02 > *To:* Martin Boyle > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: ICG Call: NTIA Role > > > > Dear Martin, > > Tks for explanation > > The first part of the message " In the model in front of us today, at > transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its > affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI " is not clearly mentioned in CWG where as > it was especifically mentioned in Legal Memo dated 04 April as I did cite > in previous message . > > For the rest I have the same understanding as your > > Consequently, the part that ICANN WILL PERFORM THE CURRENT ROLE OF NTIA > needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the CSC paragraph e.g. > > While ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its > affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently > providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANNm, CSC is > to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the > contract. > > This paraphrasing is necessary to avoid misinterpreting the Roles of icann > AND THE rOLE of CSC. > > It is always good to talk with Professional that nicely, quietly and > respectfully provide the clarification. > > Aggressive Approach does not work at least with me. > > I have never ever yeilded to any pressure at all and will not do it > > Tks again it was a kind and helpful clarification. > > Regards > > Kavouss . > > > > 2015-04-22 19:01 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle : > > Hi Kavouss, > > > > There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of > the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. > > > > The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to > consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was > looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate > and re-tender. > > > > One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a > role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the > role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to > be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet > obligations and failing to remedy the failings. > > > > In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA > responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – > where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions > operator, the IANA division in ICANN. > > > > The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities > associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that > it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works > with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the > decision on the future of the contract. > > > > For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: > > • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to > the registries; > > • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the > registries; > > • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level > agreements and other operational conditions; and > > • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on > structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the > example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. > > (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive > list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) > > However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be > implemented. > > > > Hope this helps > > > > Martin > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 23 13:09:27 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:09:27 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Please Circulate: Announcement and Public Comment page for the 2nd Draft! References: Message-ID: <7F8303C0-7852-438E-969F-4FF638ECCCD9@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: Grace Abuhamad > Date: April 23, 2015 at 5:55:12 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Please Circulate: Announcement and Public Comment page for the 2nd Draft! > > Dear CWG-Stewardship Ambassadors, > > Here are two important links to circulate as widely as the multistakeholder model can reach: > Announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en > Public Comment page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en > Also, we have about 30 people registered for each of the webinars tomorrow, but it would be great to recirculate the webinar announcement again as well: > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en > > Thank you! > Grace > > 2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions > Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 22 April 2015 > Categories/Tags: IANA Stewardship Transition > Purpose (Brief): > The ICANN Cross Community Working Group responsible for the naming related portion of the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG-Stewardship)1 seeks public comment on its 2nd draft proposal for the transition of the stewardship of the IANA Functions Contract from the U. S. Department of Commerce's NTIA to the global multistakeholder community. The draft proposal has been prepared in order to pave the way for a response (the Final Proposal) to the IANAStewardship Coordination Group (ICG) request for proposals. > > Though less than the required 40-day minimum, this Public Comment period has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders. > > Public Comment Box Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en > 1 In March 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its stewardship role of the IANA Functions and related Root Zone Management. ICANN was called upon to facilitate this process, and in June 2014, after a series of community consultations, ICANN announced the creation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA Functions. The ICG announced its Request for Proposals in September 2014, available here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en. > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 23 14:07:18 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:07:18 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: <5537B060.1030001@ripe.net> References: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <5537B060.1030001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <835c43609ef54f20a63735bbb7ac27db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > On 22.04.15 16:24 , Narelle Clark wrote: > > I don't think we've scheduled any meetings for after BA yet. I think this > would be wise. Didn't we agree to do so within two weeks? > > Excellent point. Time for a doodle poll including a look at f2f opportunities. > We can always cancel in the event that CWG hits a snag. Is this an ?? Anyway, my recollection is the same as Narelle's. We had kicked around the idea of an after-Buenos Aires meeting that was close enough to be considered followup and far away enough to allow us all to get back home. From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 23 14:15:47 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:15:47 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript In-Reply-To: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. Best, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript Dear All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: ICG Members Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Lynn St. Amour (IAB) Michael Niebel (GAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Russ Housley (IAB) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Alan Barrett (NRO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Apologies Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) James Bladel (GNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Manal Ismail (GAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 14:20:22 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:20:22 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3CF1B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3CF1B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <99338B70-C6B8-4393-A18A-F9F1C632BD15@gmail.com> Dear Martin You did stated that ICANN assumes NTIA stewardship .At the sane time you stated that CSC will perform operational functions of NTIA. May you pls explain the repartition tasks of NTIA stewardship between ICANN and CSC i.e. Since operational tasks of NTIAx will be performed by CSC then what will be performed by ICANN and what will remain to be performed by by ,NTIA non transferred Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 23 Apr 2015, at 12:51, Martin Boyle wrote: > > Dear Kavouss, > > As in my earlier mail to the list today, the draft for comments has been published so it is out of our hands to make wording changes now – we need a stable document for consultation to be fair to everyone now working on their analysis and comments. However, I think that section III.A, The elements of this proposal, on pp 18 onwards has to be seen in its entirety as it goes over the different elements of the model and the relationship between them. > > I perhaps should have mentioned yesterday that the names of the different elements have changed in drafts from those given in the chart I used to talk us through the document. In the consultation draft, “periodic review function” or PRF on the chart became the “IANA function review” or IFR: while the proposal is for the reviews to take place every five years, it is possible for a special review to be set up, so the term periodic does not quite match with the proposal. Otherwise I think I did manage to keep to current terminology. > > Best > > > Martin > > From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] > Sent: 22 April 2015 19:02 > To: Martin Boyle > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: ICG Call: NTIA Role > > Dear Martin, > Tks for explanation > The first part of the message " In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI " is not clearly mentioned in CWG where as it was especifically mentioned in Legal Memo dated 04 April as I did cite in previous message . > For the rest I have the same understanding as your > Consequently, the part that ICANN WILL PERFORM THE CURRENT ROLE OF NTIA needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the CSC paragraph e.g. > While ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANNm, CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. > This paraphrasing is necessary to avoid misinterpreting the Roles of icann AND THE rOLE of CSC. > It is always good to talk with Professional that nicely, quietly and respectfully provide the clarification. > Aggressive Approach does not work at least with me. > I have never ever yeilded to any pressure at all and will not do it > Tks again it was a kind and helpful clarification. > Regards > Kavouss . > > 2015-04-22 19:01 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle : > Hi Kavouss, > > There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. > > The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender. > > One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings. > > In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN. > > The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract. > > For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: > • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries; > • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries; > • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions; and > • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. > (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) > However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented. > > Hope this helps > > Martin > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 23 14:20:54 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:20:54 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <445920bda7da4a34a0bc68935d101884@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but I can’t tell for sure from these comments.) I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment Dear All, Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. Jennifer From: WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM To: internal-cg at icann.org Subject: CWG proposal preassessment All, in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Apr 23 15:19:30 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:19:30 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: <835c43609ef54f20a63735bbb7ac27db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <5537B060.1030001@ripe.net> <835c43609ef54f20a63735bbb7ac27db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > On 23 apr 2015, at 16:07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Anyway, my recollection is the same as Narelle's. We had kicked around the idea of an after-Buenos Aires meeting that was close enough to be considered followup and far away enough to allow us all to get back home. Secretariat will issue Doodle polls shortly. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Apr 23 15:21:17 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:21:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <445920bda7da4a34a0bc68935d101884@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <445920bda7da4a34a0bc68935d101884@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3E245CE4-9A39-4DD2-9B44-1C47C7608B11@frobbit.se> > On 23 apr 2015, at 16:20, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments FWIW, I strongly support this view. ICG should have as a role to listen and see what the bottom up process creates, and then evaluate whether the proposals are conflicting, complete etc etc. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 23 15:31:42 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:31:42 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <445920bda7da4a34a0bc68935d101884@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <445920bda7da4a34a0bc68935d101884@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <90EE79A6-1C39-45CF-B166-16880708FDD1@cooperw.in> Agree completely. On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but I can’t tell for sure from these comments.) > > I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM > To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) > > So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. > > Martin > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > Dear All, > > Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. > > Jennifer > > > From: WUKnoben > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM > To: internal-cg at icann.org > Subject: CWG proposal preassessment > > All, > > in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. > > If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 23 15:36:30 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:36:30 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <55370152.50209@oracle.com> References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> <241f7afe9e8b4838b994913514dac50a@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> <55370152.50209@oracle.com> Message-ID: <6DA27216-BDF9-4B3A-BFF3-6188946B63A6@cooperw.in> Thanks Joe. Let’s have the consensus call on this version then. If anyone objects to the publication of this document, please send email to the list by April 28 at 20:00 UTC. Thanks, Alissa On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:02 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > Colleagues: > > I have posted a clean reformatted proposed solution for the consensus building comments in drop box and attach it to this email for your convenience. > > Best- > > Joe > > On 4/18/2015 10:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Dear Joe, >> I fully agree with your way forward. >> May you kindly edit the former draft in re ordering the text and deleting the element of giving option to OCs to elect to reply or not and replace it by your text to which I fully agree >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-18 14:38 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail : >> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust .. >> >> Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense week of meetings .. >> >> I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be able to join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier .. >> >> >> Appreciate being excused .. >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> --Manal >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM >> To: Alissa Cooper >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >> >> Alissa >> >> Thank you for the message >> >> Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give the choice ti OCs to reply or not >> >> Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and copy the reply to ICG >> >> This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight that process as indicated in our charter. >> >> We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. >> >> Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. >> >> I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find a solution. >> >> Regards >> >> Ksvouss >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what changes you all have agreed. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa >> >> >> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Alissa, >> >> Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored >> >> We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement. >> >> My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to take that into account >> >> I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning >> >> We need to be practical and comply with our charter. >> >> Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done. >> >> The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . >> >> Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must be treated properly. >> >> Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the questions >> >> Then what is the role of the ICG? >> >> Community expects a proper action from ICG, >> >> The issue is not so difficult >> >> Pls do not make a mass of that. >> >> Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits >> >> Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not to diverge >> >> This is an important matter left from Singapore >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : >> >> Kavouss: >> >> We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. >> >> As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... >> >> I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... >> >> Joe >> >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM >> To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] >> CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >> >> Dear Joseph >> Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. >> Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >> > >> > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. >> > >> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > >> > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] >> > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM >> > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] >> > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >> > >> > >> >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> >> >> Choices: >> >> >> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. >> >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >> >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. >> >> >> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. >> > >> > >> > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). >> > >> > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. >> > >> > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. >> > >> > Patrik >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Internal-cg mailing list >> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Apr 23 15:54:24 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:54:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <90EE79A6-1C39-45CF-B166-16880708FDD1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <14792060.38.1429804461762.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Yes, absolutely. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Milton L Mueller" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 23 Avril 2015 17:31:42 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment Agree completely. On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but I can’t tell for sure from these comments.) I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. Martin From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment Dear All, Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. Jennifer From: WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM To: internal-cg at icann.org Subject: CWG proposal preassessment All, in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Apr 23 16:04:46 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:04:46 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <14792060.38.1429804461762.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <90EE79A6-1C39-45CF-B166-16880708FDD1@cooperw.in>, <14792060.38.1429804461762.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: +1 gTLD Keith > On Apr 23, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Yes, absolutely. > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" > À: "Milton L Mueller" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 23 Avril 2015 17:31:42 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment > > > > Agree completely. > > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: > > > > > > I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but I can’t tell for sure from these comments.) > > I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names > > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM > To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) > > So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. > > Martin > > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > Dear All, > > Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. > > Jennifer > > > > > > > > > From: WUKnoben > > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM > > To: internal-cg at icann.org > > Subject: CWG proposal preassessment > > > > > All, > > > > in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. > > > > > If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 16:11:20 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:11:20 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: References: <90EE79A6-1C39-45CF-B166-16880708FDD1@cooperw.in> <14792060.38.1429804461762.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <0AA5417B-A970-4B19-A5D6-DF0BECCE2B26@gmail.com> Yes I agree with Milton,s course of actions But we beed to discuss the most appropriate way to proceed with such an informal and internal assessment. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 23 Apr 2015, at 18:04, Drazek, Keith wrote: > > +1 > > gTLD Keith > > >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> >> Yes, absolutely. >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Alissa Cooper" >> À: "Milton L Mueller" >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Envoyé: Jeudi 23 Avril 2015 17:31:42 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment >> >> >> >> Agree completely. >> >> >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but I can’t tell for sure from these comments.) >> >> I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names >> >> >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM >> To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment >> >> I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) >> >> So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >> Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. >> >> Jennifer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: WUKnoben >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM >> >> To: internal-cg at icann.org >> >> Subject: CWG proposal preassessment >> >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. >> >> >> >> >> If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Apr 23 17:59:50 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:59:50 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Cross Community Working Group Message-ID: <26B6A2742BA44A32BF3C4601546B4637@WUKPC> Colleagues, a public comment period has been opend with regards to the 2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en I strongly recommend to make use of the webinar offered. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Thu Apr 23 20:46:29 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:46:29 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: <99338B70-C6B8-4393-A18A-F9F1C632BD15@gmail.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3CF1B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <99338B70-C6B8-4393-A18A-F9F1C632BD15@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3DFAF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Dear Kavouss, I think all the information is in the document I referenced earlier in the definitions of roles – I think reference here would be better than me trying to paraphrase some fairly careful wording. For the remnant role of NTIA – I am not sure I know what you are getting at. My understanding was that NTIA is looking to transfer all its stewardship role, so that would mean none, wouldn’t it? Or am I missing something? I guess you might be referring to NTIA’s separate contract with VeriSign for the root-zone maintainer function. This is specifically excluded in the NTIA’s March 2014 announcement, which notes that this would be subject to a separate process. But if I’m missing your concern, please have another go at me. Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Sent: 23 April 2015 15:20 To: Martin Boyle Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: ICG Call: NTIA Role Dear Martin You did stated that ICANN assumes NTIA stewardship .At the sane time you stated that CSC will perform operational functions of NTIA. May you pls explain the repartition tasks of NTIA stewardship between ICANN and CSC i.e. Since operational tasks of NTIAx will be performed by CSC then what will be performed by ICANN and what will remain to be performed by by ,NTIA non transferred Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 23 Apr 2015, at 12:51, Martin Boyle > wrote: Dear Kavouss, As in my earlier mail to the list today, the draft for comments has been published so it is out of our hands to make wording changes now – we need a stable document for consultation to be fair to everyone now working on their analysis and comments. However, I think that section III.A, The elements of this proposal, on pp 18 onwards has to be seen in its entirety as it goes over the different elements of the model and the relationship between them. I perhaps should have mentioned yesterday that the names of the different elements have changed in drafts from those given in the chart I used to talk us through the document. In the consultation draft, “periodic review function” or PRF on the chart became the “IANA function review” or IFR: while the proposal is for the reviews to take place every five years, it is possible for a special review to be set up, so the term periodic does not quite match with the proposal. Otherwise I think I did manage to keep to current terminology. Best Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Sent: 22 April 2015 19:02 To: Martin Boyle Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: ICG Call: NTIA Role Dear Martin, Tks for explanation The first part of the message " In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI " is not clearly mentioned in CWG where as it was especifically mentioned in Legal Memo dated 04 April as I did cite in previous message . For the rest I have the same understanding as your Consequently, the part that ICANN WILL PERFORM THE CURRENT ROLE OF NTIA needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the CSC paragraph e.g. While ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANNm, CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. This paraphrasing is necessary to avoid misinterpreting the Roles of icann AND THE rOLE of CSC. It is always good to talk with Professional that nicely, quietly and respectfully provide the clarification. Aggressive Approach does not work at least with me. I have never ever yeilded to any pressure at all and will not do it Tks again it was a kind and helpful clarification. Regards Kavouss . 2015-04-22 19:01 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle >: Hi Kavouss, There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender. One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings. In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN. The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract. For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries; • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries; • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions; and • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented. Hope this helps Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Thu Apr 23 20:57:55 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:57:55 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: References: <90EE79A6-1C39-45CF-B166-16880708FDD1@cooperw.in>, <14792060.38.1429804461762.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3E016@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Also +1. As Milton said, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ICG should post comments. -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: 23 April 2015 17:05 To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment +1 gTLD Keith > On Apr 23, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Yes, absolutely. > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" > À: "Milton L Mueller" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 23 Avril 2015 17:31:42 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment > > > > Agree completely. > > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: > > > > > > I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don't think anyone is suggesting that, but I can't tell for sure from these comments.) > > I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names > > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM > To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right - we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) > > So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. > > Martin > > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > Dear All, > > Please see Wolf-Ulrich's email below. > > Jennifer > > > > > > > > > From: WUKnoben > > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM > > To: internal-cg at icann.org > > Subject: CWG proposal preassessment > > > > > All, > > > > in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. > > > > > If this approach can find ICG approval I'm prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Fri Apr 24 01:07:18 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:07:18 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3E016@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <90EE79A6-1C39-45CF-B166-16880708FDD1@cooperw.in>, <14792060.38.1429804461762.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3E016@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <5cfb3d1ffe414247a73b9d7a61604559@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> +1 to all suggestions on this thread .. Thanks Wolf-Ulrich for the initial proposal .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:58 PM To: Drazek, Keith; Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment Also +1. As Milton said, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ICG should post comments. -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: 23 April 2015 17:05 To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment +1 gTLD Keith > On Apr 23, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Yes, absolutely. > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" > À: "Milton L Mueller" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 23 Avril 2015 17:31:42 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment > > > > Agree completely. > > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: > > > > > > I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don't think anyone is suggesting that, but I can't tell for sure from these comments.) > > I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names > > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM > To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right - we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) > > So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. > > Martin > > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > Dear All, > > Please see Wolf-Ulrich's email below. > > Jennifer > > > > > > > > > From: WUKnoben > > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM > > To: internal-cg at icann.org > > Subject: CWG proposal preassessment > > > > > All, > > > > in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. > > > > > If this approach can find ICG approval I'm prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Fri Apr 24 12:34:50 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:34:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript In-Reply-To: <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." Lynn On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > > “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > > I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > > Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. > > Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. > > --MM > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > > Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > > Best, > > Jennifer > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > > Dear All, > > Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: > > ICG Members > Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > Paul Wilson (NRO) > Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > Alissa Cooper (IETF) > Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > Jari Arkko (IETF) > Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > Demi Getschko (ISOC) > Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > Michael Niebel (GAC) > Narelle Clark (ISOC) > Russ Housley (IAB) > Russ Mundy (SSAC) > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > Alan Barrett (NRO) > Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > > Liaisons > Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > > Apologies > Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > James Bladel (GNSO) > Milton Mueller (GNSO) > Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > Manal Ismail (GAC) > Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > Thomas Schneider (GAC) > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 24 13:13:27 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:13:27 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: <222703347.3234088.1429773150152.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3ABBD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <222703347.3234088.1429773150152.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mary: Your questions may have been answered by someone else during the call but I didn’t see any responses so I will give it a go: Is CWG proposing that ICANN can sack PTI? MM: Yes, but not unilaterally, there is a review process anchored in the names community that it would have to do through. Some of the details of the review and separation process are not specified yet. Will ICANN sack the Board, Mangement or staff? MM: Here again we need to distinguish between “ICANN” (the corporation) and ICANN community. The review process could lead to calls for changes in the PTI board, and I think the CSC would also have an escalation process that could lead to pressure on the PTI board. Would ICANN register another Affiliate to carry on the IANA Functions since PTI is not totally independent of ICANN? MM: Who got the new names-IANA contract would depend on the outcome of an RFP I believe On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:02 PM, Martin Boyle > wrote: Hi Kavouss, There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender. One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings. In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN. The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract. For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries; • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries; • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions; and • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented. Hope this helps Martin _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Apr 24 13:21:46 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:21:46 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: References: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4286DCE@ACCAN01.accan.local> <5537B060.1030001@ripe.net> <835c43609ef54f20a63735bbb7ac27db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <022d01d07e91$9ffdea40$dff9bec0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, We are currently trying to ascertain the earliest availability for the interpreters/tech support for the calls. We will issue the doodle poll for the first call after ICANN Buenos Aires as soon as we receive this information. Please note this first call will be scheduled for 2.5 hours. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 11:20 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires > On 23 apr 2015, at 16:07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Anyway, my recollection is the same as Narelle's. We had kicked around the idea of an after-Buenos Aires meeting that was close enough to be considered followup and far away enough to allow us all to get back home. Secretariat will issue Doodle polls shortly. Patrik From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Apr 24 14:23:09 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:23:09 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Naming Proposal and IPR In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A5DD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A5DD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <640AF761-70F2-45F3-AC62-794E186454CC@cooperw.in> Thanks. I see there is a brief mention of IPR related to the IANA web site in Annex M, but I’ll assume that text was still under development when the document went out for public comment. Alissa On Apr 22, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > Hi Alissa, > > Following our call, I promised to let you know what we were saying about IPR in the CWG-Naming work. There was a small team looking at this issue and it concluded that this should be dealt with through dialogue with other communities as it is not limited to naming community. Should there be an IPR issue that is naming specific, the CWG would obtain input from the legal advisors. A call has been scheduled with chairs of CRISP team to co-ordinate, not only on this issue but also broader conversations. > > Hope this helps > > Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 14:30:00 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:30:00 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Formal Actions in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> References: <5537AE7F.7070902@ripe.net> Message-ID: <31235658-E634-484C-B1C3-0D8A807126B7@gmail.com> Dear All May you kindly give a tough idea of timing envisaged Kavousd Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Apr 2015, at 16:21, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > Alissa, > > thank you Alissa for confirming our agreement that ICG will not take any > formal actions based on the forthcoming cwg/names proposal or its draft > versions in Buenos Aires. > > I will have to make some hard decisions regarding work priorities and > they may very well prevent me from attending Buenos Aires in person. > > Of course I expect a lot of discussion to go on at that f2f meeting. > However it is important to me to know that formal actions will be taken > at subsequent meetings. > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Apr 24 14:41:38 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:41:38 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I took an action on the April 22 call to draft up a list of overlaps/issues that we could point out to the other two communities. I’ve put together a draft email for the other two communities below, drawing on Milton’s memo, the discussion we had on the call, and my own brief review of the CWG proposal. I’d like to get this out early next week since time is short for public comments. Please send feedback/additions/corrections by April 27 at 23:59 UTC. Thanks, Alissa — Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. > > Here is my memo (attached) > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Fri Apr 24 19:40:02 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:40:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <258914738.4636596.1429904402870.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you Milton for the clarifications.  I guess these are still some of the fine tuning and gaps to be filled by the  CWG-IANA Mary Uduma On Friday, April 24, 2015 2:13 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: #yiv3572514194 #yiv3572514194 -- _filtered #yiv3572514194 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3572514194 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3572514194 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv3572514194 #yiv3572514194 p.yiv3572514194MsoNormal, #yiv3572514194 li.yiv3572514194MsoNormal, #yiv3572514194 div.yiv3572514194MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3572514194 a:link, #yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3572514194 a:visited, #yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3572514194 p.yiv3572514194msolistparagraph, #yiv3572514194 li.yiv3572514194msolistparagraph, #yiv3572514194 div.yiv3572514194msolistparagraph {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3572514194 p.yiv3572514194msonormal, #yiv3572514194 li.yiv3572514194msonormal, #yiv3572514194 div.yiv3572514194msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194msohyperlink {}#yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194emailstyle17 {}#yiv3572514194 p.yiv3572514194msonormal1, #yiv3572514194 li.yiv3572514194msonormal1, #yiv3572514194 div.yiv3572514194msonormal1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3572514194 p.yiv3572514194msolistparagraph1, #yiv3572514194 li.yiv3572514194msolistparagraph1, #yiv3572514194 div.yiv3572514194msolistparagraph1 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194emailstyle171 {color:windowtext;}#yiv3572514194 span.yiv3572514194EmailStyle27 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv3572514194 .yiv3572514194MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3572514194 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3572514194 div.yiv3572514194WordSection1 {}#yiv3572514194 Mary: Your questions may have been answered by someone else during the call but I didn’t see any responses so I will give it a go:   Is CWG proposing that ICANN can sack PTI?    MM: Yes, but not unilaterally, there is a review process anchored in the names community that it would have to do through. Some of the details of the review and separation process are not specified yet.   Will ICANN sack the Board, Mangement or staff?    MM: Here again we need to distinguish between “ICANN” (the corporation) and ICANN community. The review process could lead to calls for changes in the PTI board, and I think the CSC would also have an escalation process that could lead to pressure on the PTI board.   Would ICANN  register another Affiliate to carry on the IANA Functions since PTI is  not  totally independent of ICANN?   MM: Who got the new names-IANA contract would depend on the outcome of an RFP I believe                 On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:02 PM, Martin Boyle wrote:   Hi Kavouss,   There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this.    The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went to consultation in December.  I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender.   One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator.  The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings.   In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANN.    The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract.  Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed.  The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract.   For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: •             Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries; •             Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries; •             Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions;  and •             Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list.  There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented.   Hope this helps   Martin _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Fri Apr 24 20:37:11 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:37:11 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Naming Proposal and IPR In-Reply-To: <640AF761-70F2-45F3-AC62-794E186454CC@cooperw.in> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A5DD@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <640AF761-70F2-45F3-AC62-794E186454CC@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3F27E@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Good catch, Alissa, I hadn't picked up the reference to the website in Annex M - the transition from the post transition IANA - the existing IANA functions operator - to a new operator, should it become necessary at some stage. A separate Design Team was looking at IPR issues and the status of that work was what I quoted below. The transition of the website, the registries and any trademarked terms to a new operator will depend a bit on who actually owns the IPR and whether this has been transferred to the PTI. So I think that there still needs to be some discussion on these arrangements between the communities, although I suppose that there is no real need to have every piece of IP covered in the same way. Thanks for spotting it! Martin From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 24 April 2015 15:23 To: Martin Boyle Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: Naming Proposal and IPR Thanks. I see there is a brief mention of IPR related to the IANA web site in Annex M, but I'll assume that text was still under development when the document went out for public comment. Alissa On Apr 22, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Martin Boyle > wrote: Hi Alissa, Following our call, I promised to let you know what we were saying about IPR in the CWG-Naming work. There was a small team looking at this issue and it concluded that this should be dealt with through dialogue with other communities as it is not limited to naming community. Should there be an IPR issue that is naming specific, the CWG would obtain input from the legal advisors. A call has been scheduled with chairs of CRISP team to co-ordinate, not only on this issue but also broader conversations. Hope this helps Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Apr 24 23:16:01 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:16:01 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: <445920bda7da4a34a0bc68935d101884@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <445920bda7da4a34a0bc68935d101884@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Agree with Milton's points here. We do not want to be seen as "steering" the finalization of this proposal, or treating it inconsistently than the other two. Thanks- J. From: Milton L Mueller > Date: Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 9:20 To: Martin Boyle >, "internal-cg at ianacg.org" > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don't think anyone is suggesting that, but I can't tell for sure from these comments.) I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right - we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment Dear All, Please see Wolf-Ulrich's email below. Jennifer From: WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM To:internal-cg at icann.org Subject: CWG proposal preassessment All, in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. If this approach can find ICG approval I'm prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Sat Apr 25 09:25:08 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:25:08 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript In-Reply-To: <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20150425092507.GD1578@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > > “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea > that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of > contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > > I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my > opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA > suggested this. I too would like to know when and where the NTIA made such a suggestion. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jjs at dyalog.net Sat Apr 25 12:55:43 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:55:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <25262027.424.1429966542986.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Alissa, thanks for your timely initiative, which I support. I would like to suggest including an element which was discussed in the earlier stages of CWG, but which has somehow come off the radar: the long-term advantages of creating, in addition to the US jurisdiction under which ICANN, IANA and the future PTI operate now and in the future, an entity under a non-US jurisdiction, e.g. in Geneva under international and Swiss laws. Such a solution was explored in detail a few years ago, and retained in the Recommendations of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" document, put together by the ICANN President's Strategy Committee, and of which I was a co-author. Specifically, I am suggesting that you add to your proposed message, the following (SUGGESTED ADDITION IN BOLD): - "2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III), under third bullet: * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. IN ADDITION, IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE, IN A LONGER-TERM PERSPECTIVE, TO CREATE THE PTI BOARD IN A JURISDICTION SEPARATE FROM THE CURRENT IANA ONE. THIS TYPE OF SOLUTION, ALREADY STUDIED IN DETAIL AND RECOMMENDED BY THE "IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENCE" PAPER OF ICANN'S PSC (PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMITTEE), WOULD CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE INTERNET, OFTEN CALLED FOR IN INTERNATIONAL FORA." - "5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. AS ALREADY SUGGESTED FOR PTI (ABOVE), A LONGER-TERM PERSPECTIVE WOULD WARRANT THE CREATION OF THE CSC IN A JURISDICTION SEPARATE FROM THE ONE UNDER WHICH ICANN AND IANA ARE OPERATING. THIS TOO WOULD CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE INTERNET, WHICH HAS BEEN ADVOCATED BY MANY PARTIES OVER MANY YEARS." In the context of the whole idea of Transition, such a solution would offer at least 2 major advantages: - it would render less contentious, the long-standing debate about whether ICANN (and IANA), and especially their operational dimension, should remain in the single US jurisdiction; - such an initiative would be an innovative contribution to a more global Internet infrastructure and system of governance. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Milton L Mueller" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Vendredi 24 Avril 2015 16:41:38 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I took an action on the April 22 call to draft up a list of overlaps/issues that we could point out to the other two communities. I’ve put together a draft email for the other two communities below, drawing on Milton’s memo, the discussion we had on the call, and my own brief review of the CWG proposal. I’d like to get this out early next week since time is short for public comments. Please send feedback/additions/corrections by April 27 at 23:59 UTC. Thanks, Alissa — Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en >. We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. Here is my memo (attached) Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let’s shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; ' internal-cg at ianacg.org ' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I’d propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad at icann.org > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: " cwg-stewardship at icann.org " < cwg-stewardship at icann.org > Cc: Brenda Brewer < brenda.brewer at icann.org > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC . Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC : Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April : Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April : Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note : This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days) . * Thursday 23 April : Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April : Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jon at donuts.co Sat Apr 25 13:38:38 2015 From: jon at donuts.co (Jon Nevett) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <25262027.424.1429966542986.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <25262027.424.1429966542986.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <6E212DFB-2E19-44E7-A6EC-65E814D6600B@donuts.co> Jean-Jacques: I don't support the addition in which we suggest a different jurisdiction. I understand that the intent of the mailing is to point out similarities and inconsistencies for the purpose of inviting comment. The proposed addition seems more like a comment vs. a request for comment. I would be ok with the following: > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board AND ITS JURISDICTION ARE not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. Best, Jon > On Apr 25, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > Dear Alissa, > > thanks for your timely initiative, which I support. I would like to suggest including an element which was discussed in the earlier stages of CWG, but which has somehow come off the radar: the long-term advantages of creating, in addition to the US jurisdiction under which ICANN, IANA and the future PTI operate now and in the future, an entity under a non-US jurisdiction, e.g. in Geneva under international and Swiss laws. Such a solution was explored in detail a few years ago, and retained in the Recommendations of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" document, put together by the ICANN President's Strategy Committee, and of which I was a co-author. > > Specifically, I am suggesting that you add to your proposed message, the following (SUGGESTED ADDITION IN BOLD): > > - "2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III), under third bullet: > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. IN ADDITION, IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE, IN A LONGER-TERM PERSPECTIVE, TO CREATE THE PTI BOARD IN A JURISDICTION SEPARATE FROM THE CURRENT IANA ONE. THIS TYPE OF SOLUTION, ALREADY STUDIED IN DETAIL AND RECOMMENDED BY THE "IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENCE" PAPER OF ICANN'S PSC (PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMITTEE), WOULD CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE INTERNET, OFTEN CALLED FOR IN INTERNATIONAL FORA." > > - "5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. AS ALREADY SUGGESTED FOR PTI (ABOVE), A LONGER-TERM PERSPECTIVE WOULD WARRANT THE CREATION OF THE CSC IN A JURISDICTION SEPARATE FROM THE ONE UNDER WHICH ICANN AND IANA ARE OPERATING. THIS TOO WOULD CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE INTERNET, WHICH HAS BEEN ADVOCATED BY MANY PARTIES OVER MANY YEARS." > > In the context of the whole idea of Transition, such a solution would offer at least 2 major advantages: > - it would render less contentious, the long-standing debate about whether ICANN (and IANA), and especially their operational dimension, should remain in the single US jurisdiction; > - such an initiative would be an innovative contribution to a more global Internet infrastructure and system of governance. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" > À: "Milton L Mueller" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Vendredi 24 Avril 2015 16:41:38 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > > > I took an action on the April 22 call to draft up a list of overlaps/issues that we could point out to the other two communities. I’ve put together a draft email for the other two communities below, drawing on Milton’s memo, the discussion we had on the call, and my own brief review of the CWG proposal. I’d like to get this out early next week since time is short for public comments. Please send feedback/additions/corrections by April 27 at 23:59 UTC. > > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > — > > > > Dear , > > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en >. We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: > > > * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. > > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. > > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. > > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: > > > > > > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. > > Here is my memo (attached) > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > > > > From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: > > > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; ' internal-cg at ianacg.org ' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > > I’d propose the following options: > > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > > 4. 1 + 4 > > > > > > From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > > > Hi all, > > > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > > > Alissa > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > From: Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad at icann.org > > > > > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > > To: " cwg-stewardship at icann.org " < cwg-stewardship at icann.org > > > Cc: Brenda Brewer < brenda.brewer at icann.org > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC . > > > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > > > * Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC : Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > * Tuesday 21 April : Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > * Wednesday 22 April : Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note : This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days) . > * Thursday 23 April : Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > * Friday 24 April : Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > > > > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > > Grace > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Apr 25 13:53:00 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <6E212DFB-2E19-44E7-A6EC-65E814D6600B@donuts.co> References: <25262027.424.1429966542986.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <6E212DFB-2E19-44E7-A6EC-65E814D6600B@donuts.co> Message-ID: On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:38, Jon Nevett wrote: > I don't support the addition in which we suggest a different jurisdiction. Agree. Once again, we as ICG should not and can not propose any specific solution or changes. If ICG members or their organizations do have specific views, by all means do submit such things via whatever mechanism the OC have suggested. Best, Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 18:35:23 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 20:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment In-Reply-To: References: <004101d07d0f$31aae850$9500b8f0$@icgsec.asia> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3A802@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <445920bda7da4a34a0bc68935d101884@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear All CCWG finished its first round and the results is scheduled to be posted on 04 May. I have been following all sessions of that Group. Although we are involved in CWG naming but there are few overlapping areas that we need ti also consider. Once the output us published. Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Apr 2015, at 01:16, James M. Bladel wrote: > > Agree with Milton’s points here. We do not want to be seen as “steering” the finalization of this proposal, or treating it inconsistently than the other two. > > Thanks— > > J. > > > From: Milton L Mueller > Date: Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 9:20 > To: Martin Boyle , "internal-cg at ianacg.org" > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but I can’t tell for sure from these comments.) > > I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM > To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right – we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals. Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together. (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.) > > So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this. > > Martin > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16 > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment > > Dear All, > > Please see Wolf-Ulrich’s email below. > > Jennifer > > > From: WUKnoben > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM > To:internal-cg at icann.org > Subject: CWG proposal preassessment > > All, > > in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG. > > If this approach can find ICG approval I’m prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Sat Apr 25 19:51:30 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:51:30 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <25262027.424.1429966542986.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <6E212DFB-2E19-44E7-A6EC-65E814D6600B@donuts.co> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A3FCE8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I agree with Jon and Patrik. I'd also note that the CWG has discussed jurisdiction and decided not to make a decision at this stage, as it would complicate the discussion. The CSC, if I remember correctly, is simply a standing committee and would not have a legal identity of its own. It is not set up to make decisions, for example. Incidentally, I think that when you reference a Geneva jurisdiction, you really are not looking at something under Swiss law, but at a regime more akin to an inter-governmental organisation's - sort of ICRC or FIFA models, neither of which has been without serious accountability and trust issues. Best Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: 25 April 2015 14:53 To: Jon Nevett Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:38, Jon Nevett wrote: > I don't support the addition in which we suggest a different jurisdiction. Agree. Once again, we as ICG should not and can not propose any specific solution or changes. If ICG members or their organizations do have specific views, by all means do submit such things via whatever mechanism the OC have suggested. Best, Patrik From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 20:35:28 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 22:35:28 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: <258914738.4636596.1429904402870.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <258914738.4636596.1429904402870.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Martin I wish to receive your kind reply about the distribution / repartition of the Current NTIA to Future ICANN ( acting as NTIA 9 AND csc ( PERFPORMING OPERATION FUNCTIONS OF NTIA) Pls kindly advise which NTIA CURRENT FUNCTIONS will be performed by ICANN as per CWG output and which current NTIA function will be perfomned by CSC It is not clear Regards Kavouss 2015-04-24 21:40 GMT+02:00 Mary Uduma : > Thank you Milton for the clarifications. > I guess these are still some of the fine tuning and gaps to be filled by > the CWG-IANA > > > Mary Uduma > > > > On Friday, April 24, 2015 2:13 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > Mary: > Your questions may have been answered by someone else during the call but > I didn’t see any responses so I will give it a go: > > Is CWG proposing that ICANN can sack PTI? > > MM: Yes, but not unilaterally, there is a review process anchored in the > names community that it would have to do through. Some of the details of > the review and separation process are not specified yet. > > Will ICANN sack the Board, Mangement or staff? > > MM: Here again we need to distinguish between “ICANN” (the corporation) > and ICANN community. The review process could lead to calls for changes in > the PTI board, and I think the CSC would also have an escalation process > that could lead to pressure on the PTI board. > > Would ICANN register another Affiliate to carry on the IANA Functions > since PTI is not totally independent of ICANN? > > MM: Who got the new names-IANA contract would depend on the outcome of an > RFP I believe > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:02 PM, Martin Boyle < > Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role > of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. > > The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went > to consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was > looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate > and re-tender. > > One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability – > a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the > role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to > be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet > obligations and failing to remedy the failings. > > In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the > NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI > – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions > operator, the IANA division in ICANN. > > The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities > associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that > it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works > with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the > decision on the future of the contract. > > For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: > • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to > the registries; > • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the > registries; > • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level > agreements and other operational conditions; and > • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on > structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the > example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. > (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive > list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) > However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to > be implemented. > > Hope this helps > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 09:46:07 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:46:07 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call: NTIA Role In-Reply-To: References: <258914738.4636596.1429904402870.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Jonathan Dear Martin, To make the issue of repartition of the tasks between ICANN and future oversighting entity of IANA functions ( replacing NTIA ) and the CSC in performing some of the NTIA Functions . In order to clarify the matter it is good to refresh our mind of the following The curremt functions performed by IANA are Since 2000, ICANN has performed the IANA functions, on behalf of the U.S. government, through a contract with NTIA (read more on this background ). This contract has been amended, extended and renewed over the years. The current version of the IANA contract, awarded by NTIA in July 2012, defines the following functions: 1. Coordination of the assignment of technical protocol parameters including the management of the address and routing parameter area (ARPA) TLD. 2. The administration of certain responsibilities associated with the Internet DNS root zone management, namely: - Root Zone File Change Request Management - Root Zone *“*WHOIS*” *Change Request and Database Management - Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top Level-Domain (ccTLD*)* - Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) - Root Zone Automation - Root Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Key Management - Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (CSCRP) - The allocation of Internet numbering resources: - To the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) 3. Other services related to the management of the ARPA and INT top-level domains (TLDs The above functions could be summarized as follows a. Domain Name System Root Zone Management$ b. Internet Number Registry Management c Protocol pParameter Registry Managmenrt in cluding management of the Addresse and Rooting Parameter AREA (ARPA ) TLD and Management of the INTernational treat organization ( INT) to Level Domain Pls kindly confirm if all these functions will be tasked to PTI and which one goes to CSC On the other hand ,the oversight role played by the NTIA.includes: - Awarding and setting the terms of the IANA functions contract for a defined period, including specific options for extending that contract. - Ensuring that the contractor meets specific service and reporting requirements. This includes: - Working with defined “interested and affected parties” (including the RIRs) to develop: - User instructional documentation, including technical requirements - Documentation of the source of policies and procedures for specific IANA functions - Performance standards for operation of the IANA functions - Customer complaint process - Security plan (updated annually) - Monthly performance standards reports - Annual customer service survey - Annual external audit report - Annual Conflict of Interest Enforcement and Compliance report - Annually updated Contingency and Continuation of Operations Plan (CCOP) - Plan for Transition to Successor Please kindly clarify which of these functions A ,Continued to be performed by NTIA,if any B) Will be performed by ICANN as replacement of NTIA C) Will be performed by CSC Regards 2015-04-25 22:35 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Martin > I wish to receive your kind reply about the distribution / repartition of > the Current NTIA to Future ICANN ( acting as NTIA 9 AND csc ( PERFPORMING > OPERATION FUNCTIONS OF NTIA) > Pls kindly advise which NTIA CURRENT FUNCTIONS will be performed by ICANN > as per CWG output and which current NTIA function will be perfomned by CSC > It is not clear > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-24 21:40 GMT+02:00 Mary Uduma : > >> Thank you Milton for the clarifications. >> I guess these are still some of the fine tuning and gaps to be filled by >> the CWG-IANA >> >> >> Mary Uduma >> >> >> >> On Friday, April 24, 2015 2:13 PM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >> >> >> Mary: >> Your questions may have been answered by someone else during the call but >> I didn’t see any responses so I will give it a go: >> >> Is CWG proposing that ICANN can sack PTI? >> >> MM: Yes, but not unilaterally, there is a review process anchored in the >> names community that it would have to do through. Some of the details of >> the review and separation process are not specified yet. >> >> Will ICANN sack the Board, Mangement or staff? >> >> MM: Here again we need to distinguish between “ICANN” (the corporation) >> and ICANN community. The review process could lead to calls for changes in >> the PTI board, and I think the CSC would also have an escalation process >> that could lead to pressure on the PTI board. >> >> Would ICANN register another Affiliate to carry on the IANA Functions >> since PTI is not totally independent of ICANN? >> >> MM: Who got the new names-IANA contract would depend on the outcome of an >> RFP I believe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:02 PM, Martin Boyle < >> Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi Kavouss, >> >> There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role >> of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this. >> >> The NTIA has a number of roles – identified in the document which went >> to consultation in December. I’m sorry if I did not make clear that I was >> looking at NTIA’s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate >> and re-tender. >> >> One key part of the CWG’s discussion has been focussed on separability >> – a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for >> the role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role >> to be reassigned in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet >> obligations and failing to remedy the failings. >> >> In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the >> NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI >> – where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions >> operator, the IANA division in ICANN. >> >> The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities >> associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that >> it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works >> with PTI to ensure that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the >> decision on the future of the contract. >> >> For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend: >> • Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to >> the registries; >> • Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the >> registries; >> • Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level >> agreements and other operational conditions; and >> • Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on >> structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the >> example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change. >> (I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive >> list. There’s also a lot of detail I have not covered.) >> However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to >> be implemented. >> >> Hope this helps >> >> Martin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 14:56:31 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 14:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <831438392.5570959.1430060191798.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Dear All, Thank you Alissa and those that have commented on this thread. I support the direction of the Chair as a proactive move.  I also agree with Patrik's proposition. However, I have the following questions for ICG  members in the  Protocol Parameters and the Number Communities regarding the Naming proposal on IANA function operator in the post transition. Has ICANN Liaisons to any of the two OCs, the MOUs  not withstanding? Can the two OCs  be willing to part-own the PTI instead of it being wholly owned by ICANN and other OCs just having a liaison to its Board? Though not yet concluded. Are there any legal, statutory or jurisdictional restrictions for doing so? Mary Uduma On Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:53 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:38, Jon Nevett wrote: > I don't support the addition in which we suggest a different jurisdiction. Agree. Once again, we as ICG should not and can not propose any specific solution or changes. If ICG members or their organizations do have specific views, by all means do submit such things via whatever mechanism the OC have suggested.   Best, Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Apr 26 15:27:00 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:27:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <831438392.5570959.1430060191798.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <19263836.547.1430062018687.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Thank you Jon, Patrik, Martin and Mary: point taken. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Mary Uduma" À: "Patrik Fältström" , "Jon Nevett" , "Alissa Cooper" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Dimanche 26 Avril 2015 16:56:31 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Dear All, Thank you Alissa and those that have commented on this thread. I support the direction of the Chair as a proactive move. I also agree with Patrik's proposition. However, I have the following questions for ICG members in the Protocol Parameters and the Number Communities regarding the Naming proposal on IANA function operator in the post transition. Has ICANN Liaisons to any of the two OCs, the MOUs not withstanding? Can the two OCs be willing to part-own the PTI instead of it being wholly owned by ICANN and other OCs just having a liaison to its Board? Though not yet concluded. Are there any legal, statutory or jurisdictional restrictions for doing so? Mary Uduma On Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:53 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:38, Jon Nevett wrote: > I don't support the addition in which we suggest a different jurisdiction. Agree. Once again, we as ICG should not and can not propose any specific solution or changes. If ICG members or their organizations do have specific views, by all means do submit such things via whatever mechanism the OC have suggested. Best, Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Apr 26 20:33:44 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 13:33:44 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? Alissa On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Milton, > > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > > Lynn > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >> >> --MM >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >> >> Best, >> >> Jennifer >> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >> >> ICG Members >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >> Paul Wilson (NRO) >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >> Jari Arkko (IETF) >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >> Michael Niebel (GAC) >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >> Russ Housley (IAB) >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >> Alan Barrett (NRO) >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >> >> Liaisons >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >> >> Apologies >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >> James Bladel (GNSO) >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >> Manal Ismail (GAC) >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Jennifer >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 21:07:21 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Dear All, Thank you for your comments 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff to ICGin regard with what Alissa said Quote " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” Unquote I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what appropriate actions to be taken Kavouss 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo > raised a question for me: > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important > process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives > consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to > alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is > attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights > exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it > interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational > community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on > behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same > things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement > of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, > including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition > proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that > includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms > associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the > IANA functions operator? > > Alissa > > On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > > Milton, > > > > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and > ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it > thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include > any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > > > > Lynn > > > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >> > >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that > Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract > termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >> > >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would > like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > >> > >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or > terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through > various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something > similar. > >> > >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no > business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA > wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing > about splitting the IANA functions. > >> > >> --MM > >> > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Jennifer Chung > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat > Transcript > >> > >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached > please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Jennifer > >> > >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call > (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: > >> > >> ICG Members > >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >> Russ Housley (IAB) > >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >> > >> Liaisons > >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >> > >> Apologies > >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >> James Bladel (GNSO) > >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Jennifer > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 27 02:46:37 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 02:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <1c73c6d047a34f9e8da76344feb150d3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same > things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of > some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, > including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition > proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? I do think it would be very helpful, and particularly at this time. As we get closer to the end game I think there will be enormous pressure among certain parties to move some of the key issues into private negotiations. This could lead to some major disillusionment and de-legitimization of the process. > And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms > associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the > IANA functions operator? Yes. I believe that it should include opinions about contractual terms. But this raises a more fundamental issue. Suppose an operational community comes to consensus on something like (just to use a concrete but potentially fictitious example) "we want our contract with the IANA functions operator to be up for renewal through an open RFP every 5 years." Should ICANN staff or legal now be able to come back and negotiate with the operational community and say, "we think it should be up for renewal only every 7 years," or "we think there should be presumptive renewal?" In other words, is ICANN expected to acquiesce in these operational community proposals if they have consensus and pass through the ICG process, or is ICANN have the latitude to enter into negotiations regarding their terms? Whether ICANN expresses its opinions publicly or not is important, but equally important is the principle whether the output of the stewardship transition process is binding on ICANN, or merely the first step in what will become essentially a private bargaining/negotiation process between ICANN and whoever purports to negotiate on behalf of the OCs. --MM From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 27 03:39:05 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 03:39:05 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. I would propose a few edits if it's not too late, see below: Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community's proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. MM: I would replace "possibility" with "likelihood." I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC's comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as "maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI." * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. MM: insert "periodically" between "reviewed" and "post-transition" 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: "The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function." If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He'd be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. Here is my memo (attached) Disclaimer: it's my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don't have to wade through 120 pages.... From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I'll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let's shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I'd propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Mon Apr 27 04:57:25 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 06:57:25 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <2A4D8D51-02E0-497D-A23B-232B996B9F91@frobbit.se> On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:33, Alissa Cooper wrote: > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? I would support such a clarification from ICG. Any views on proposed changes, regardless of who is having a view, regardless on in what role that individual is expressing the view, must be brought to the OCs. There is no other avenue for requests. And yes, this include staff or individuals that by any means have direct, economical or otherwise connections with the operational communities. Bottom up and transparent processes are what we use here. And yes, this might be specifically important to say for ICANN staff as they otherwise are excluded from participation in the PDP that might affect their own operation. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 07:13:04 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:13:04 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear All Thank you again, Sorry if I missed some part of the discussion May you please advise where the following questions addressed to the Community to which Milton provided some suggestions emanated from ? These are : *" Dear ,* *You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment <* *https://www.icann.org/public-**comments/cwg-stewardship-* *draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en* *>. We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community:* *1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A)* *As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities.* *2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III)* *The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications:* ** The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI.* *MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. * ** Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement.* *MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.”* ** PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board.* *3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F)* *The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews.* *MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition”* *4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I)* *The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities.* ** *5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G)* *The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. * *MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” * * Tks * Kavouss 2015-04-27 5:39 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller : > Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very > neutral language. > > I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: > > > > Dear , > > > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the > IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has > recently put its proposal out for public comment < > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. > We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would > benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information > concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition > IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA > naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, > data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may > want to consider a number of associated implications: > > > > * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming > IANA functions would be moved to PTI. > > > > MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a > question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters > to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. > > > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have > related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, > including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to > PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. > > > > MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with > ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an > existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” > > > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in > the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about > including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition > and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the > opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > > > MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” > > > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related > services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering > resources communities. > > > > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and > Annex G) > > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to > perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as > they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. > The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > > > MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes > the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of > the IANA naming function.” > > > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or > understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead > discussion of CWG. > > > > Here is my memo (attached) > > > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was > banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you > don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > > > > *From:* Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk > ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > *To:* Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* 20 April 2015 21:42 > *To:* Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead > the discussion, please speak up. > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be > 1 + 3 > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > *To:* 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all > of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am > supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an > appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > > I’d propose the following options: > > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss > on the call > > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I > was going to be able to do. > > 4. 1 + 4 > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > *Importance:* High > > > > Hi all, > > > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal > for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body > we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of > questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking > about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton > has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April > 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, > but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > > > Alissa > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *Grace Abuhamad > > *Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement* > > *Date: *April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > > *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer > > > > Dear all, > > > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following > key dates. *It is important for you to circulate this information to your > communities to make sure they are informed.* The announcement for the > Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list > when posted. > > > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now > *cancelled* (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send > the cancellation notice. > > > > *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. > > > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > > - *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the draft > on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to > review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > - *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal > (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > - *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. *Note* > : *This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of > 30 days)*. > - *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high > intensity meetings) > - *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on > Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > > Grace > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 27 13:32:12 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:32:12 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5cf88f6422b749e094bcd727c5551f7d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Kavouss: The origin was an email from Alissa on Friday April 24, in which she was executing an action item from the April 22 call --MM From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:13 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Dear All Thank you again, Sorry if I missed some part of the discussion May you please advise where the following questions addressed to the Community to which Milton provided some suggestions emanated from ? These are : " Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” Tks Kavouss 2015-04-27 5:39 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller >: Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. Here is my memo (attached) Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let’s shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I’d propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Apr 27 14:14:03 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 07:14:03 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Hi Kavouss, The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3) I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit. Alissa On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear All, > Thank you for your comments > 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff to ICGin regard with what Alissa said > Quote > " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > Unquote > I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . > 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. > 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion > 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. > We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output > Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what appropriate actions to be taken > Kavouss > > 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? > > Alissa > > On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > > Milton, > > > > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > > > > Lynn > > > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >> > >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >> > >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > >> > >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. > >> > >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. > >> > >> --MM > >> > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >> > >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Jennifer > >> > >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: > >> > >> ICG Members > >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >> Russ Housley (IAB) > >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >> > >> Liaisons > >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >> > >> Apologies > >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >> James Bladel (GNSO) > >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Jennifer > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 14:22:30 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:22:30 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Dear Alissa Thanks Then why we intervene? Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? I suggest no action at all Kavouss 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Hi Kavouss, > > The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities > engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: > > > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf (starting > at slide 18) > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. > 2-3) > > I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the > two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should > say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea > as they see fit. > > Alissa > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > > Dear All, > Thank you for your comments > 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff to > ICGin regard with what Alissa said > Quote > " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to > make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by > an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering > with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is > also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and > are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > Unquote > I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. > The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from > that Liasion . > 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not > received any formal statement from ICANN. > 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities > and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion > 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or > terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through > various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something > similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be > valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these > existing MoU are to be treated. > We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output > Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what > appropriate actions to be taken > Kavouss > > 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > >> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo >> raised a question for me: >> >> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important >> process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives >> consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to >> alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is >> attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights >> exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it >> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational >> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on >> behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >> >> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same >> things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement >> of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, >> including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition >> proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that >> includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms >> associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the >> IANA functions operator? >> >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> >> > Milton, >> > >> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and >> ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >> thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >> any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >> > >> > Lynn >> > >> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >> >> >> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >> functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that >> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract >> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >> >> >> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would >> like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >> >> >> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or >> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through >> various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something >> similar. >> >> >> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no >> business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA >> wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing >> about splitting the IANA functions. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >> Of Jennifer Chung >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat >> Transcript >> >> >> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached >> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> >> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll >> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >> >> >> >> ICG Members >> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >> >> Paul Wilson (NRO) >> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >> >> Jari Arkko (IETF) >> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >> >> Michael Niebel (GAC) >> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >> >> Russ Housley (IAB) >> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >> >> Alan Barrett (NRO) >> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >> >> >> >> Liaisons >> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >> >> >> >> Apologies >> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >> >> James Bladel (GNSO) >> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >> >> Manal Ismail (GAC) >> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Internal-cg mailing list >> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Internal-cg mailing list >> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 14:28:16 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:28:16 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <5cf88f6422b749e094bcd727c5551f7d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5cf88f6422b749e094bcd727c5551f7d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Mi8lton, Tks WILL look at the case soon Kavouss 2015-04-27 15:32 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller : > Kavouss: > > The origin was an email from Alissa on Friday April 24, in which she was > executing an action item from the April 22 call > > --MM > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2015 3:13 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller; Martin Boyle > *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > Dear All > > Thank you again, > > Sorry if I missed some part of the discussion > > May you please advise where the following questions addressed to the > Community to which Milton provided some suggestions emanated from ? > > These are : > > > > *" Dear ,* > > > > *You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the > IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has > recently put its proposal out for public comment <* > *https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en* > *>. > We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would > benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community:* > > > > *1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A)* > > *As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information > concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities.* > > > > *2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III)* > > *The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition > IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA > naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, > data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may > want to consider a number of associated implications:* > > > > ** The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the > non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI.* > > > > *MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a > question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters > to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. * > > > > ** Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have > related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, > including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to > PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement.* > > > > *MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with > ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an > existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.”* > > > > ** PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in > the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about > including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board.* > > > > *3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F)* > > *The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition > and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the > opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews.* > > > > *MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition”* > > > > *4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I)* > > *The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related > services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering > resources communities.* > > > > ** > > *5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and > Annex G)* > > *The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to > perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as > they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. > The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. * > > > > *MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: **“The CWG > proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the > performance of the IANA naming function.” * > > * Tks * > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-04-27 5:39 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller : > > Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very > neutral language. > > I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: > > > > Dear , > > > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the > IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has > recently put its proposal out for public comment < > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. > We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would > benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information > concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition > IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA > naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, > data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may > want to consider a number of associated implications: > > > > * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming > IANA functions would be moved to PTI. > > > > MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a > question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters > to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. > > > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have > related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, > including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to > PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. > > > > MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with > ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an > existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” > > > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in > the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about > including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition > and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the > opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > > > MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” > > > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related > services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering > resources communities. > > > > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and > Annex G) > > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to > perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as > they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. > The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > > > MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes > the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of > the IANA naming function.” > > > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or > understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead > discussion of CWG. > > > > Here is my memo (attached) > > > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was > banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you > don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > > > > *From:* Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk > ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > *To:* Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* 20 April 2015 21:42 > *To:* Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead > the discussion, please speak up. > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be > 1 + 3 > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > *To:* 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all > of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am > supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an > appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > > I’d propose the following options: > > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss > on the call > > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I > was going to be able to do. > > 4. 1 + 4 > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > *Importance:* High > > > > Hi all, > > > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal > for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body > we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of > questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking > about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton > has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April > 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, > but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > > > Alissa > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *Grace Abuhamad > > *Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement* > > *Date: *April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > > *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer > > > > Dear all, > > > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following > key dates. *It is important for you to circulate this information to your > communities to make sure they are informed.* The announcement for the > Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list > when posted. > > > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now > *cancelled* (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send > the cancellation notice. > > > > *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. > > > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > > - *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the draft > on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to > review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > - *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal > (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > - *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. *Note* > : *This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of > 30 days)*. > - *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high > intensity meetings) > - *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on > Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > > Grace > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Apr 27 14:32:50 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 07:32:50 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Hi Kavouss, We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out. I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them, which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit. Alissa On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Alissa > Thanks > Then why we intervene? > Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? > I suggest no action at all > Kavouss > > 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Hi Kavouss, > > The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: > > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3) > > I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit. > > Alissa > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> Dear All, >> Thank you for your comments >> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff to ICGin regard with what Alissa said >> Quote >> " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >> Unquote >> I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . >> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. >> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion >> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. >> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output >> Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what appropriate actions to be taken >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >> >> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >> >> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >> >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> >> > Milton, >> > >> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >> > >> > Lynn >> > >> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >> >> >> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >> >> >> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >> >> >> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >> >> >> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >> >> >> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> >> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >> >> >> >> ICG Members >> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >> >> Paul Wilson (NRO) >> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >> >> Jari Arkko (IETF) >> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >> >> Michael Niebel (GAC) >> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >> >> Russ Housley (IAB) >> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >> >> Alan Barrett (NRO) >> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >> >> >> >> Liaisons >> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >> >> >> >> Apologies >> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >> >> James Bladel (GNSO) >> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >> >> Manal Ismail (GAC) >> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Internal-cg mailing list >> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Internal-cg mailing list >> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Mon Apr 27 14:38:39 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:38:39 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Alissa: For what it is worth, I think the ICG has been clear already earlier that all feedback to the processes needs to go through the communities. I think it may be helpful to re-iterate this, though. Milton: FYI, I supported your statement on this topic on our previous call that you were unable to attend. Also, Kavouss: > This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. The CWG output is not related to how the other communities handle their MoUs. Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 27 14:48:07 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:48:07 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <821e622792d043dc9851050509ef17ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Kavouss, The problem we are trying to address is that negotiations and claims are being made out of public view, in an attempt to change the operational community proposals behind the scenes. ICG has the responsibility to uphold the openness and transparency of the process. Alissa proposed, and Patrik and I supported, a simple statement that discussions and negotiations about the merits of the proposals should be out in the open. It appears to me that you are unfamiliar with the problems that led to Alissa’s proposal. Before you suggest “no action” I suggest you spend some time reviewing slides 18-20 of the presentation made by members of the CRISP team at this link: (no need to read the whole thing) https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf If you wish to intervene heavily in this discussion it is essential that you read that material first. Once you have read that, please tell me if you still think “no action” is needed. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 15:29:09 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:29:09 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <821e622792d043dc9851050509ef17ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <821e622792d043dc9851050509ef17ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50E642F3-3BDD-4A07-A2A8-4F5D2A3A3B5B@gmail.com> Dear Milton Thank you very much for clarifications which is highly appreciated Yes, I need to carefully read the slides including nos .18- 22 The difficulties that faced was the telegraphic nature of the message Your clarifications were quite helpful . I will revert back to you soon Best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Apr 2015, at 16:48, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Kavouss, > > The problem we are trying to address is that negotiations and claims are being made out of public view, in an attempt to change the operational community proposals behind the scenes. ICG has the responsibility to uphold the openness and transparency of the process. Alissa proposed, and Patrik and I supported, a simple statement that discussions and negotiations about the merits of the proposals should be out in the open. > > It appears to me that you are unfamiliar with the problems that led to Alissa’s proposal. Before you suggest “no action” I suggest you spend some time reviewing slides 18-20 of the presentation made by members of the CRISP team at this link: (no need to read the whole thing) https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf > > If you wish to intervene heavily in this discussion it is essential that you read that material first. Once you have read that, please tell me if you still think “no action” is needed. > > --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 15:39:29 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:39:29 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <522B8DB7-6A53-4D3F-8A5B-1047E928E550@gmail.com> Jari, Tks However, the issue of how treat existing MoU was discussed at CWG. We had members there. Whether they raised the issue that you have difficulties with or not , they may wish to comment. Whether we need to treat the existing MoU as they are or whether we have yo take into account the output of CWG is a matter to be examined. When I proposed that we would have been in a better evaluation if the co chairs of CWG were to brief ICG , some radical person opposed to that. In fact the case under discussion would have been better understood if such a brief was made, Kavouss I understand that IETF wants NO CHANGE to any things that was your position from the very Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Apr 2015, at 16:38, Jari Arkko wrote: > > Alissa: > > For what it is worth, I think the ICG has been clear already earlier that all feedback to the processes needs to go through the communities. I think it may be helpful to re-iterate this, though. Milton: FYI, I supported your statement on this topic on our previous call that you were unable to attend. > > Also, Kavouss: > >> This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. > > The CWG output is not related to how the other communities handle their MoUs. > > Jari > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 15:46:29 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7938F53F-B356-48AB-BEAD-C8814B37E76F@gmail.com> Dear Alissa You are now more clearer than before . In fact Milton,s clarification was very helpful. Now once we carefully examined the case then we need to decide what is the most appropriate way to react? Statement or other course of action . May I request you and those supporting your position to clarify the effectiveness of the statement in the sense that it meets our concerns or whether the questions raised / position taken by ICANN would achieved its objectives Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Apr 2015, at 16:32, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out. I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them, which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit. > > Alissa > >> On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Dear Alissa >> Thanks >> Then why we intervene? >> Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? >> I suggest no action at all >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>> Hi Kavouss, >>> >>> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: >>> >>> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments >>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3) >>> >>> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> Thank you for your comments >>>> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff to ICGin regard with what Alissa said >>>> Quote >>>> " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>>> Unquote >>>> I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . >>>> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. >>>> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion >>>> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. >>>> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output >>>> Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what appropriate actions to be taken >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >>>>> >>>>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>>>> >>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Milton, >>>>> > >>>>> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>> > >>>>> > Lynn >>>>> > >>>>> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --MM >>>>> >> >>>>> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Jennifer >>>>> >> >>>>> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dear All, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ICG Members >>>>> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>> >> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>> >> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>> >> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>> >> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>> >> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Liaisons >>>>> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Apologies >>>>> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>> >> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>> >> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Jennifer >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 15:50:05 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:50:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <2A4D8D51-02E0-497D-A23B-232B996B9F91@frobbit.se> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2A4D8D51-02E0-497D-A23B-232B996B9F91@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <5EBC49E3-13DD-496C-952B-E331793CCF5A@gmail.com> Patrik Your explanation is unclear. Your position is confusing Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Apr 2015, at 06:57, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:33, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? > > I would support such a clarification from ICG. > > Any views on proposed changes, regardless of who is having a view, regardless on in what role that individual is expressing the view, must be brought to the OCs. There is no other avenue for requests. And yes, this include staff or individuals that by any means have direct, economical or otherwise connections with the operational communities. Bottom up and transparent processes are what we use here. > > And yes, this might be specifically important to say for ICANN staff as they otherwise are excluded from participation in the PDP that might affect their own operation. > > Patrik > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 16:23:33 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:23:33 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Fully agree. ICANN has no any intention to intervene the independent process of ICG. More than that, ICANN board support the independent process of ICG without question. Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > Kavouss Arasteh 於 2015年4月27日 07:22 寫道： > > Dear Alissa > Thanks > Then why we intervene? > Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? > I suggest no action at all > Kavouss > > 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> Hi Kavouss, >> >> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: >> >> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3) >> >> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> Thank you for your comments >>> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff to ICGin regard with what Alissa said >>> Quote >>> " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> Unquote >>> I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . >>> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. >>> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion >>> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. >>> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output >>> Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what appropriate actions to be taken >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >>>> >>>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>>> >>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>> >>>> > Milton, >>>> > >>>> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>> > >>>> > Lynn >>>> > >>>> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>> >> >>>> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>> >> >>>> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>> >> >>>> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>>> >> >>>> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>> >> >>>> >> --MM >>>> >> >>>> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>> >> >>>> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best, >>>> >> >>>> >> Jennifer >>>> >> >>>> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>> >> >>>> >> Dear All, >>>> >> >>>> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>>> >> >>>> >> ICG Members >>>> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>> >> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>> >> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>> >> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>> >> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>> >> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>> >> >>>> >> Liaisons >>>> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>> >> >>>> >> Apologies >>>> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>> >> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>> >> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>> >> >>>> >> Best Regards, >>>> >> >>>> >> Jennifer >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Internal-cg mailing list >>>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Apr 27 16:50:06 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:50:06 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum Message-ID: <006301d0810a$383f1a20$a8bd4e60$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum: 24 April - "Process and substantive concerns" from Richard Hill requesting ICG clarification: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00035.html Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 16:50:27 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:50:27 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Alissa, As all (include ICANN) known, the proposals from IETF and CRISP team are crystal create in public. And it delivered to ICG for a while. No one can deny it. It is on ICG's hand. We have no intention to do anything regarding for the question. Again, ICANN fully support the independent process of ICG. This is very clear from ICANN whole board. Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > Alissa Cooper 於 2015年4月26日 13:33 寫道： > > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? > > Alissa > >> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> >> Milton, >> >> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >> >> Lynn >> >>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>> >>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>> >>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>> >>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>> >>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Jennifer >>> >>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>> >>> ICG Members >>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>> >>> Liaisons >>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>> >>> Apologies >>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Jennifer >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Apr 27 17:20:50 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:20:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle Poll for ICG Call - 8 July 2015 Message-ID: <007f01d0810e$83112ad0$89338070$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, We have received information that ICANN tech and interpretation support can resume on Wednesday 8 July 2015. Attached please find a matrix of interpreters' availability for the contemplated time slots (please note some language audio streams will be unavailable for certain time slots). This call is scheduled for 2.5 hours, please indicate your availability by filling out the doodle poll using the link below: http://doodle.com/uy3s9acg9abnfu2c Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG CALL July 8th 2015 Interpreters Availability.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 12380 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 18:09:31 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:09:31 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <9D6B0BC4-39FC-4589-B453-8B4DFBA71E69@gmail.com> Crystal clear (correction) Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > Wu Kuo 於 2015年4月27日 09:50 寫道： > > Alissa, > > As all (include ICANN) known, the proposals from IETF and CRISP team are crystal create in public. And it delivered to ICG for a while. No one can deny it. It is on ICG's hand. We have no intention to do anything regarding for the question. Again, ICANN fully support the independent process of ICG. This is very clear from ICANN whole board. > > Kuo Wu > > 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > >> Alissa Cooper 於 2015年4月26日 13:33 寫道： >> >> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >> >> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >> >> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>> Milton, >>> >>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>> >>> Lynn >>> >>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>> >>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>> >>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>> >>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>>> >>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>> >>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Jennifer >>>> >>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>>> >>>> ICG Members >>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>> >>>> Liaisons >>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>> >>>> Apologies >>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Jennifer >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 20:06:48 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:06:48 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG output In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Co-Chairs of CWG One relating to the division /repartition of functions between ICANN as replacing NTIA and one CSC ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh Date: 2015-04-27 15:17 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: CWG output To: Romain Jordan Cher Maitre Désole de vous dreangé , C'etait enfet Jordan CARTER PAS VOUSMEME SALUTATIONS k.a 2015-04-27 15:10 GMT+02:00 Romain Jordan : > Cher Monsieur, > Je crois qu’il s’agit d’une erreur d’adressage. > Bien à vous > RJ > ___ > > Romain JORDAN > Avocat > Juge suppléant à la Cour de justice > > *MERKT* [&] associés > > 15, rue Général-Dufour > CP 5556 | CH-1211 Genève 11 > T +41 22 809 55 99 | F +41 22 809 55 90 > www.merkt.ch > > Ce message peut contenir des informations confidentielles, couvertes par > le secret professionnel ou réservées exclusivement à leur destinataire et > aux personnes autorisées. Toute lecture, utilisation, diffusion ou > divulgation sans autorisation préalable expresse est strictement interdite. > Si vous n'en êtes pas le destinataire, merci d'en informer immédiatement > l'expéditeur (RJordan at merkt.ch) et de détruire ce message. > > This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information > and is intended only for the addressee. Any dissemination, distribution, > copying or use of this communication without prior permission is strictly > prohibited. If you are not the intended or authorized recipient of this > message, please immediately notify the sender by return email ( > RJordan at merkt.ch) and permanently delete this message. > > Le 27 avr. 2015 à 14:06, Kavouss Arasteh a > écrit : > > This message is addressed to Jonathan and Lise > Dear CWG CO-Chair > May you comment on thie follow which has been emanated from one source > Kavouss > *That SPOURCE WISHES TO RAISE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS* > * Q**UOTE* > > *"Dear ,* > > > > *You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the > IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has > recently put its proposal out for public comment <* > *https://www.icann.org/public-**comments/cwg-stewardship-draft* > *proposal-2015-04-22-en* > *>. > We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would > benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community:* > > > > *1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A)* > > *As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information > concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities.* > > > > *2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III)* > > *The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition > IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA > naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, > data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may > want to consider a number of associated implications:* > > > > ** The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the > non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI.* > > > > * COMMENTING SOURCE : I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I > would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on > whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same > organization. * > > > > ** Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have > related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, > including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to > PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement.* > > > > *COMMENTING SOURCE**: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining > your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, > assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.”* > > > > ** PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in > the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about > including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board.* > > > > *3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F)* > > *The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition > and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the > opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews.* > > > > *COMMENTING SOURCE:** insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and > “post-transition”* > > > > *4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I)* > > *The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related > services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering > resources communities.* > > > > ** > > *5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and > Annex G)* > > *The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to > perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as > they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. > The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. * > > > > *COMMENTING SOURCE**: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: **“The > CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the > performance of the IANA naming function.” * > > Tks " > > Unquote > > Pls also advise on the accountability measures to be in place or committed > to be done in regard with IAB which currently oversights the IETF. Then how > the community exercises its oversight on IAB > > > *Kavouss * > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 20:09:15 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:09:15 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG output In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Co-Chairs of CWG One relating to the division /repartition of functions between ICANN as replacing NTIA and one CSC as performing the functions of monitoring certain activities of NTIA , the second is relating to the recent ICANN communication to the community as reporoduced below I request you to kindly reply Kavouss 2015-04-27 22:06 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Co-Chairs of CWG > One relating to the division /repartition of functions between ICANN as > replacing NTIA and one CSC > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Kavouss Arasteh > Date: 2015-04-27 15:17 GMT+02:00 > Subject: Re: CWG output > To: Romain Jordan > > > Cher Maitre > Désole de vous dreangé , C'etait enfet Jordan CARTER PAS VOUSMEME > SALUTATIONS > k.a > > 2015-04-27 15:10 GMT+02:00 Romain Jordan : > >> Cher Monsieur, >> Je crois qu’il s’agit d’une erreur d’adressage. >> Bien à vous >> RJ >> ___ >> >> Romain JORDAN >> Avocat >> Juge suppléant à la Cour de justice >> >> *MERKT* [&] associés >> >> 15, rue Général-Dufour >> CP 5556 | CH-1211 Genève 11 >> T +41 22 809 55 99 | F +41 22 809 55 90 >> www.merkt.ch >> >> Ce message peut contenir des informations confidentielles, couvertes par >> le secret professionnel ou réservées exclusivement à leur destinataire et >> aux personnes autorisées. Toute lecture, utilisation, diffusion ou >> divulgation sans autorisation préalable expresse est strictement interdite. >> Si vous n'en êtes pas le destinataire, merci d'en informer immédiatement >> l'expéditeur (RJordan at merkt.ch) et de détruire ce message. >> >> This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information >> and is intended only for the addressee. Any dissemination, distribution, >> copying or use of this communication without prior permission is strictly >> prohibited. If you are not the intended or authorized recipient of this >> message, please immediately notify the sender by return email ( >> RJordan at merkt.ch) and permanently delete this message. >> >> Le 27 avr. 2015 à 14:06, Kavouss Arasteh a >> écrit : >> >> This message is addressed to Jonathan and Lise >> Dear CWG CO-Chair >> May you comment on thie follow which has been emanated from one source >> Kavouss >> *That SPOURCE WISHES TO RAISE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS* >> * Q**UOTE* >> >> *"Dear ,* >> >> >> >> *You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the >> IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has >> recently put its proposal out for public comment <* >> *https://www.icann.org/public-**comments/cwg-stewardship-draft* >> *proposal-2015-04-22-en* >> *>. >> We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would >> benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community:* >> >> >> >> *1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A)* >> >> *As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information >> concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities.* >> >> >> >> *2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III)* >> >> *The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition >> IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA >> naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, >> data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may >> want to consider a number of associated implications:* >> >> >> >> ** The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the >> non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI.* >> >> >> >> * COMMENTING SOURCE : I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I >> would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on >> whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same >> organization. * >> >> >> >> ** Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have >> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, >> including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to >> PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement.* >> >> >> >> *COMMENTING SOURCE**: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining >> your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, >> assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.”* >> >> >> >> ** PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in >> the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about >> including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board.* >> >> >> >> *3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex >> F)* >> >> *The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed >> post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities >> be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing >> reviews.* >> >> >> >> *COMMENTING SOURCE:** insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and >> “post-transition”* >> >> >> >> *4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I)* >> >> *The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related >> services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering >> resources communities.* >> >> >> >> ** >> >> *5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and >> Annex G)* >> >> *The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to >> perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as >> they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. >> The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. * >> >> >> >> *COMMENTING SOURCE**: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: >> **“The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to >> monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” * >> >> Tks " >> >> Unquote >> >> Pls also advise on the accountability measures to be in place or >> committed to be done in regard with IAB which currently oversights the >> IETF. Then how the community exercises its oversight on IAB >> >> >> *Kavouss * >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wuknoben at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 20:14:28 2015 From: wuknoben at gmail.com (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:14:28 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal preassessment Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Thanks for all comments with regards to the CWG proposal preassessment which I was suggesting. Maybe I didn’t clearly express my view about. I fully agree that with a “preassessment” during the ongoing public comment period no formal assessment should be anticipated and it shouldn’t be used as a public comment from the ICG. As Milton pointed out - and many of you joined this view – this public comment is the forum for the community to react as individuals, constituencies, groups, whatever... And after this the CWG shall come up with the final proposal to be sent to the chartering SGs and then to the ICG. The ICG internal discussion and evaluation along the criteria we’ve set in the process and proposal assessment sheet could help for better understanding and lead to questions which we could forward to the CWG (not to the public comment list). Main goal is to make reasonable use of the time available. I’ll try to spend some time this week for starting this effort. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Mon Apr 27 20:40:06 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:40:06 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle Poll for ICG Call - 8 July 2015 In-Reply-To: <007f01d0810e$83112ad0$89338070$@icgsec.asia> References: <007f01d0810e$83112ad0$89338070$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <0738147E-2104-4AFF-8BEF-CE2613B74E6F@frobbit.se> All, As you can see a few time slots are much worse than others for interpretation. I was asked by the secretariat if those times should be excluded from the doodle poll. I requested all(!) time slots to still be there so that people independently from the availability of interpretation responded to the poll. *If* we find that the time when we do not have complete availability for interpretation but a very high availability of ICG members, then we will come back with a question on how to handle the situation as we have two conflicting goals. So please do respond to the doodle according to YOUR availability. Best, Patrik On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:20, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear ICG members, > > > > We have received information that ICANN tech and interpretation support can > resume on Wednesday 8 July 2015. Attached please find a matrix of > interpreters' availability for the contemplated time slots (please note some > language audio streams will be unavailable for certain time slots). > > > > This call is scheduled for 2.5 hours, please indicate your availability by > filling out the doodle poll using the link below: > > > > http://doodle.com/uy3s9acg9abnfu2c > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > > [ICG CALL July 8th 2015 Interpreters Availability.docx] > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 28 05:27:57 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 01:27:57 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 22 April 2015 teleconference Message-ID: <010d01d08174$16dcc160$44964420$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The minutes for the 22 April teleconference (ICG Call #14) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/kz68zdr . Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-22-april-2015-draft.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 46077 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wuknoben at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 10:20:31 2015 From: wuknoben at gmail.com (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:20:31 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Board workshop presentations associated with the IANAtransition In-Reply-To: <37E555CC92FF40399A2DFD78DB0C011D@WUKPC> References: <37E555CC92FF40399A2DFD78DB0C011D@WUKPC> Message-ID: FYI! Wolf-Ulrich From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 4:18 AM To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board workshop presentations associated with the IANAtransition Hello All, At the Board workshop in Los Angeles yesterday we received a briefing from • Andrew Sullivan, (IAB) • Jonathan Robinson, Co-Chair, CWG-Stewardship and GNSO Chair • Jari Arkko, ICG Member and IETF Chair • Izumi Okutani, Chair, CRISP Team • Axel Pawlik, NRO Chair on the status of their work on the proposals for the IANA transition. The briefings were recorded and transcribed, and are available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-workshop-community-panel-intro-2015-04-26-en I have attached the transcript. If the CCWG would like to brief the Board prior to Buenos Aires, I can arrange for that. I will also coordinate a response from the Board to the CCWG report as part of the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 138076 bytes Desc: not available URL: From epusp75 at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 12:58:47 2015 From: epusp75 at gmail.com (Demi Getschko) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:58:47 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle Poll for ICG Call - 8 July 2015 In-Reply-To: <0738147E-2104-4AFF-8BEF-CE2613B74E6F@frobbit.se> References: <007f01d0810e$83112ad0$89338070$@icgsec.asia> <0738147E-2104-4AFF-8BEF-CE2613B74E6F@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <553F8407.5030702@gmail.com> Agreed, Patrik. demi On 04/27/2015 05:40 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > All, > > As you can see a few time slots are much worse than others for interpretation. I was asked by the secretariat if those times should be excluded from the doodle poll. I requested all(!) time slots to still be there so that people independently from the availability of interpretation responded to the poll. > > *If* we find that the time when we do not have complete availability for interpretation but a very high availability of ICG members, then we will come back with a question on how to handle the situation as we have two conflicting goals. > > So please do respond to the doodle according to YOUR availability. > > Best, Patrik > > On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:20, Jennifer Chung wrote: > >> Dear ICG members, >> >> >> >> We have received information that ICANN tech and interpretation support can >> resume on Wednesday 8 July 2015. Attached please find a matrix of >> interpreters' availability for the contemplated time slots (please note some >> language audio streams will be unavailable for certain time slots). >> >> >> >> This call is scheduled for 2.5 hours, please indicate your availability by >> filling out the doodle poll using the link below: >> >> >> >> http://doodle.com/uy3s9acg9abnfu2c >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [ICG CALL July 8th 2015 Interpreters Availability.docx] >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 28 13:48:07 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:48:07 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <20828af2590340c39485722331eac5b4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > We have no intention to do anything > regarding for the question. Again, ICANN fully support the > independent process of ICG. This is very clear from ICANN whole > board. Kuo-wei The public position of ICANN board members is indeed clear. What is not clear is what your CEO and staff are saying to the CRISP team. There is a direct contradiction between board members' statements and the report given by the CRISP team and some other indications regarding IETF and its SLA. I certainly believe in your sincere commitment to the process but it's apparent that there are people in ICANN who don't have the same commitment. Do you have any objection if ICG issues the kind of statement proposed by Alissa? --MM From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 14:07:38 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:07:38 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <20828af2590340c39485722331eac5b4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <20828af2590340c39485722331eac5b4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0387B940-E55C-4FAA-B65F-61C07D53B22B@gmail.com> I didn't read the statement from Alissa yet. I will response after I read it. And ICG is an independent group, unless ICG want to get comment what ICANN board. I don't see what we can stop ICG's action, isn't it? Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > Milton L Mueller 於 2015年4月28日 21:48 寫道： > > >> -----Original Message----- >> We have no intention to do anything >> regarding for the question. Again, ICANN fully support the >> independent process of ICG. This is very clear from ICANN whole >> board. > > Kuo-wei > The public position of ICANN board members is indeed clear. What is not clear is what your CEO and staff are saying to the CRISP team. > There is a direct contradiction between board members' statements and the report given by the CRISP team and some other indications regarding IETF and its SLA. I certainly believe in your sincere commitment to the process but it's apparent that there are people in ICANN who don't have the same commitment. Do you have any objection if ICG issues the kind of statement proposed by Alissa? > > --MM From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 28 14:17:56 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:17:56 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <0387B940-E55C-4FAA-B65F-61C07D53B22B@gmail.com> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <20828af2590340c39485722331eac5b4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0387B940-E55C-4FAA-B65F-61C07D53B22B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <18e126a965c94c0f898408c1407dfd75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Kuo-wei Here is Alissa's original message. http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000236.html You might also be interested in my recent blog post on the topic http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/ It is not about whether ICANN can "stop ICG's action" it is about whether it can unilaterally dictate changes in the operational community proposals, effectively circumventing the ICG process. --MM > -----Original Message----- > I didn't read the statement from Alissa yet. I will response after I read > it. And ICG is an independent group, unless ICG want to get comment > what ICANN board. I don't see what we can stop ICG's action, isn't it? > From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 14:23:02 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:23:02 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <18e126a965c94c0f898408c1407dfd75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <20828af2590340c39485722331eac5b4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0387B940-E55C-4FAA-B65F-61C07D53B22B@gmail.com> <18e126a965c94c0f898408c1407dfd75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <676B3BE3-ED04-418E-BD6F-4CF7A3AE21E6@gmail.com> Thanks for sharing your information. I just back from a trip, and arrived home few minutes ago. I will read it ASAP. But I have to say, ICANN has MOU with NRO and IETF for years as you know. This is not a secret at all. Again, I have to read the information you gave, and get back to ICG ASAP. Thanks. Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > Milton L Mueller 於 2015年4月28日 22:17 寫道： > > > Kuo-wei > Here is Alissa's original message. > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000236.html > > You might also be interested in my recent blog post on the topic > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/ > > It is not about whether ICANN can "stop ICG's action" it is about whether it can unilaterally dictate changes in the operational community proposals, effectively circumventing the ICG process. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> I didn't read the statement from Alissa yet. I will response after I read >> it. And ICG is an independent group, unless ICG want to get comment >> what ICANN board. I don't see what we can stop ICG's action, isn't it? >> From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Apr 28 15:04:12 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:04:12 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. Thanks all. Alissa ---- Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG --- On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. > I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: > > Dear , > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: > > * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. > > MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. > > MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. > > Here is my memo (attached) > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Apr 28 15:10:06 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:10:06 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <831438392.5570959.1430060191798.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <831438392.5570959.1430060191798.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5567C750-8B0A-44C8-9E26-98B86D4A0267@cooperw.in> Hi Mary, One response below. On Apr 26, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Mary Uduma wrote: > Dear All, > > Thank you Alissa and those that have commented on this thread. I support the direction of the Chair as a proactive move. > I also agree with Patrik's proposition. > However, I have the following questions for ICG members in the Protocol Parameters and the Number Communities regarding the Naming proposal on IANA function operator in the post transition. > > Has ICANN Liaisons to any of the two OCs, the MOUs not withstanding? ICANN appoints an IANA liaison to the IETF. The IETF appoints a liaison to the ICANN Board, two technical experts to the ICANN Technical Liaisons Group, and one voting member of the ICANN Nomcom. As far as I know the governing documents that created these positions are entirely separate from the IANA-related MOU. Perhaps Alan or Paul can answer for the RIRs. I didn’t add the question above to the draft note to the communities as it seems more like a factual question about existing practice than a question related to the CWG proposal. But please correct me if I misunderstood. Alissa > > Can the two OCs be willing to part-own the PTI instead of it being wholly owned by ICANN and other OCs just having a liaison to its Board? Though not yet concluded. > > Are there any legal, statutory or jurisdictional restrictions for doing so? > > > > Mary Uduma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:53 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > > On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:38, Jon Nevett wrote: > > > > I don't support the addition in which we suggest a different jurisdiction. > > > Agree. > > Once again, we as ICG should not and can not propose any specific solution or changes. If ICG members or their organizations do have specific views, by all means do submit such things via whatever mechanism the OC have suggested. > > Best, Patrik > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Tue Apr 28 16:51:42 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:51:42 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <39F5E142-BC69-4DE9-9AA3-FCA00CEBE265@LStAmour.org> Hi Alissa, all, I support sending a statement such as you propose. This is too important a principle and too important a task for us not to be vigilant, particularly when there are reports of statements that contradict previous agreements. Best, Lynn On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Kavouss, > > We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out. I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them, which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit. > > Alissa > > On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> Dear Alissa >> Thanks >> Then why we intervene? >> Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? >> I suggest no action at all >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> Hi Kavouss, >> >> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: >> >> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3) >> >> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit. >> >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> Thank you for your comments >>> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff to ICGin regard with what Alissa said >>> Quote >>> " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> Unquote >>> I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . >>> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. >>> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion >>> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. >>> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output >>> Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what appropriate actions to be taken >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >>> >>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> >>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>> > Milton, >>> > >>> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>> > >>> > Lynn >>> > >>> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>> >> >>> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>> >> >>> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>> >> >>> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>> >> >>> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>> >> >>> >> --MM >>> >> >>> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >> >>> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Jennifer >>> >> >>> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >> >>> >> Dear All, >>> >> >>> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>> >> >>> >> ICG Members >>> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>> >> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>> >> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>> >> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>> >> Russ Housley (IAB) >>> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>> >> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>> >> >>> >> Liaisons >>> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>> >> >>> >> Apologies >>> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>> >> James Bladel (GNSO) >>> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>> >> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>> >> >>> >> Best Regards, >>> >> >>> >> Jennifer >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Internal-cg mailing list >>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Internal-cg mailing list >>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> > From mnuduma at yahoo.com Tue Apr 28 18:11:46 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:11:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <5567C750-8B0A-44C8-9E26-98B86D4A0267@cooperw.in> References: <5567C750-8B0A-44C8-9E26-98B86D4A0267@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <438134643.7489064.1430244706880.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Alissa.Very helpful answer. Hopefully, Alan would comment as well. Mary Uduma On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 4:10 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Hi Mary, One response below. On Apr 26, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Mary Uduma wrote: Dear All, Thank you Alissa and those that have commented on this thread. I support the direction of the Chair as a proactive move.  I also agree with Patrik's proposition. However, I have the following questions for ICG  members in the  Protocol Parameters and the Number Communities regarding the Naming proposal on IANA function operator in the post transition. Has ICANN Liaisons to any of the two OCs, the MOUs  not withstanding? ICANN appoints an IANA liaison to the IETF. The IETF appoints a liaison to the ICANN Board, two technical experts to the ICANN Technical Liaisons Group, and one voting member of the ICANN Nomcom. As far as I know the governing documents that created these positions are entirely separate from the IANA-related MOU. Perhaps Alan or Paul can answer for the RIRs. I didn’t add the question above to the draft note to the communities as it seems more like a factual question about existing practice than a question related to the CWG proposal. But please correct me if I misunderstood. Alissa Can the two OCs  be willing to part-own the PTI instead of it being wholly owned by ICANN and other OCs just having a liaison to its Board? Though not yet concluded. Are there any legal, statutory or jurisdictional restrictions for doing so? Mary Uduma On Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:53 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:38, Jon Nevett wrote: > I don't support the addition in which we suggest a different jurisdiction. Agree. Once again, we as ICG should not and can not propose any specific solution or changes. If ICG members or their organizations do have specific views, by all means do submit such things via whatever mechanism the OC have suggested.   Best, Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Tue Apr 28 18:13:58 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:13:58 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <39F5E142-BC69-4DE9-9AA3-FCA00CEBE265@LStAmour.org> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <39F5E142-BC69-4DE9-9AA3-FCA00CEBE265@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497DF096@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I also support sending a statement and am fine with the proposed language. If this reported behavior has occurred and is undermining the work of the OCs, it is troubling and appears to raise questions about ICANN's commitment to a truly bottom-up, consensus-based community process. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:52 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Hi Alissa, all, I support sending a statement such as you propose. This is too important a principle and too important a task for us not to be vigilant, particularly when there are reports of statements that contradict previous agreements. Best, Lynn On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Kavouss, > > We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out. I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them, which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit. > > Alissa > > On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> Dear Alissa >> Thanks >> Then why we intervene? >> Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? >> I suggest no action at all >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> Hi Kavouss, >> >> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: >> >> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-de >> velopments >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/ >> crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-ste >> wardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3) >> >> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit. >> >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> Thank you for your comments >>> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff >>> to ICGin regard with what Alissa said Quote " Shouldn’t we expect >>> the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> Unquote >>> I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . >>> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. >>> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational >>> communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to >>> any conclusion >>> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. >>> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG >>> output Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then >>> to decide what appropriate actions to be taken Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >>> >>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> >>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>> > Milton, >>> > >>> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>> > >>> > Lynn >>> > >>> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>> >> >>> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>> >> >>> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>> >> >>> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>> >> >>> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>> >> >>> >> --MM >>> >> >>> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>> >> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat >>> >> Transcript >>> >> >>> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Jennifer >>> >> >>> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >> >>> >> Dear All, >>> >> >>> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>> >> >>> >> ICG Members >>> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>> >> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>> >> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>> >> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>> >> Russ Housley (IAB) >>> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>> >> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>> >> >>> >> Liaisons >>> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>> >> >>> >> Apologies >>> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>> >> James Bladel (GNSO) >>> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>> >> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>> >> >>> >> Best Regards, >>> >> >>> >> Jennifer >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Internal-cg mailing list >>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Internal-cg mailing list >>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Tue Apr 28 18:17:51 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:17:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <39F5E142-BC69-4DE9-9AA3-FCA00CEBE265@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <25076273.2007.1430245067440.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello Alissa, like others, I find that a statement from ICG would have value. This should focus on the gap, or risk of a gap, between the agreed standards under which we are operating in putting together a plan for the Transition of Stewardship, and actions that may undermine, or be seen to undermine, these standards. We could also point out that, at a time when the community is engaged in a large effort to improve Accountability, including in the perspective of Transition, all parties should felt bound by the same obligation of carrying out discussions in an open and documented manner. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Lynn St.Amour" À: "Alissa Cooper" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mardi 28 Avril 2015 18:51:42 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Hi Alissa, all, I support sending a statement such as you propose. This is too important a principle and too important a task for us not to be vigilant, particularly when there are reports of statements that contradict previous agreements. Best, Lynn On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Kavouss, > > We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out. I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them, which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit. > > Alissa > > On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> Dear Alissa >> Thanks >> Then why we intervene? >> Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? >> I suggest no action at all >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> Hi Kavouss, >> >> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: >> >> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3) >> >> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit. >> >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> Thank you for your comments >>> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff to ICGin regard with what Alissa said >>> Quote >>> " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> Unquote >>> I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . >>> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. >>> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any conclusion >>> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. >>> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG output >>> Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide what appropriate actions to be taken >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >>> >>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> >>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>> > Milton, >>> > >>> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>> > >>> > Lynn >>> > >>> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>> >> >>> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>> >> >>> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>> >> >>> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>> >> >>> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>> >> >>> >> --MM >>> >> >>> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >> >>> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Jennifer >>> >> >>> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >> >>> >> Dear All, >>> >> >>> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>> >> >>> >> ICG Members >>> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>> >> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>> >> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>> >> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>> >> Russ Housley (IAB) >>> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>> >> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>> >> >>> >> Liaisons >>> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>> >> >>> >> Apologies >>> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>> >> James Bladel (GNSO) >>> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>> >> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>> >> >>> >> Best Regards, >>> >> >>> >> Jennifer >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Internal-cg mailing list >>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Internal-cg mailing list >>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 28 22:36:33 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:36:33 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] OF INTEREST: Special for MENA region and/or Arabic speakers: IANA Stewardship Transition Update Message-ID: <00d001d08203$c88c6020$59a52060$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Please see the following session that may be of interest to the ICG: Original announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-23-en Update on the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability Date: Tuesday 5th May 2015 Time: 12:00 UTC AGENDA SUMMARY: Time Event Speaker 12.00 - 12.05 Welcome note Baher Esmat, VP, Stakeholder Engagement, Middle East - ICANN 12.05 - 12.25 Overview of the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability processes Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Global Strategy 12.25 - 12.45 The IANA Coordination Group (ICG) Mohammed El Bashir, ICG Co-Chair 12.45 - 13.25 Q&A Open Floor 13.25 - 13.30 Closing Remarks Baher Esmat, VP, Stakeholder Engagement, Middle East - ICANN Questions and interventions can be made in either Arabic or English over the phone or posted as text in the Adobe Connect room. https://icann.adobeconnect.com/meswg HOW TO JOIN: 1. Request for dial-out assistance. Please send your name, the phone number you want to be called at and your language preference to meswg at icann.org, no later than May 3rd at 23:59 UTC. 2. Join by dialing the toll-free number for your country as shown at http://adigo.com/icann/ toll-free numbers do NOT show an 'L', 'M', or 'T' in front of them). Once you are prompted for the conference code, enter: 47139 - Arabic 83137 - English -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Apr 28 22:37:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:37:45 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] OF INTEREST: WEBINAR: Further Discussion on the CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment Message-ID: <00da01d08203$f3d2b6d0$db782470$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Please see the following webinar hosted by the CWG that may be of interest: Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en WEBINAR: Further Discussion on the CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment The Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) released its 2nd draft proposal for public comment on 22 April. Following the opening of the public comment proceeding, the CWG-Stewardship Chairs hosted two briefing webinars on 24 April. The briefing webinars on 24 April focused on the CWG-Stewardship work process, development of the 2nd draft proposal, and provided an overview of the contents and proposed structural model. The CWG-Stewardship Chairs will now host a follow-up series of webinars to brief interested community members on the content of the 2nd draft proposal, and to respond to questions that have surfaced since the briefings on 24 April. These two webinars may help further inform community submissions in time for the close of the public comment period on 20 May. These two webinars will be held at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: * 6 May from 13:00 - 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here) * 7 May from 06:00 - 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here) _____ Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room. If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to brenda.brewer at icann.org and indicate which time you would like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the CWG-Stewardship Wiki here. _____ Further information For further information about the CWG-Stewardship's work, please see https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg. For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please see https://www.icann.org/stewardship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 06:26:28 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:26:28 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <25076273.2007.1430245067440.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <39F5E142-BC69-4DE9-9AA3-FCA00CEBE265@LStAmour.org> <25076273.2007.1430245067440.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: Dear Milton, I have studied the whole sets of slides and not only those that you referred to in your mail. Pls kindly identify the particular subject 7 issues on which ICG needs to make a statement There are many issues which are not clear. There are quoatation from ICANN ( VERBAL ) . Are we dealing with the rights of having separate termination of agreement between IANA OPERATOR ( I saw three different references to Numbering, naming and protocol operators ) Who are these three operators? ICANN? PTI( which is referred to for naming in CWG second Draft ) or others? Are we dealing with the quoataion that "*NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?”* Please kindly as supèporter of sending statement specify the subject(s) on which we have concerns? I have no problem to issue a statement if the source is official and if the subject is clear Regards Kavouss 2015-04-28 20:17 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > Hello Alissa, > > like others, I find that a statement from ICG would have value. This > should focus on the gap, or risk of a gap, between the agreed standards > under which we are operating in putting together a plan for the Transition > of Stewardship, and actions that may undermine, or be seen to undermine, > these standards. We could also point out that, at a time when the community > is engaged in a large effort to improve Accountability, including in the > perspective of Transition, all parties should felt bound by the same > obligation of carrying out discussions in an open and documented manner. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Lynn St.Amour" > À: "Alissa Cooper" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Mardi 28 Avril 2015 18:51:42 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Hi Alissa, all, > > I support sending a statement such as you propose. This is too important > a principle and too important a task for us not to be vigilant, > particularly when there are reports of statements that contradict previous > agreements. > > Best, > Lynn > > On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > Hi Kavouss, > > > > We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be > supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all > interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton > is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to > is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out. > I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them, > which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our > expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that > put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit. > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > > > >> Dear Alissa > >> Thanks > >> Then why we intervene? > >> Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? > >> I suggest no action at all > >> Kavouss > >> > >> 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > >> Hi Kavouss, > >> > >> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities > engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: > >> > >> > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developments > >> > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf > (starting at slide 18) > >> > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-stewardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf > (p. 2-3) > >> > >> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about > the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG > should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on > this idea as they see fit. > >> > >> Alissa > >> > >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > >> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Thank you for your comments > >>> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff > to ICGin regard with what Alissa said > >>> Quote > >>> " Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is > attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights > exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it > interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational > community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on > behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > >>> Unquote > >>> I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say > so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment > from that Liasion . > >>> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have > not received any formal statement from ICANN. > >>> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational > communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to any > conclusion > >>> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” > or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through > various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something > similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be > valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these > existing MoU are to be treated. > >>> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG > output > >>> Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then to decide > what appropriate actions to be taken > >>> Kavouss > >>> > >>> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > >>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo > raised a question for me: > >>> > >>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important > process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives > consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to > alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is > attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights > exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it > interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational > community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on > behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > >>> > >>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the > same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a > statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested > parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the > transition proposals openly and transparently within the community > processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles > and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the > communities and the IANA functions operator? > >>> > >>> Alissa > >>> > >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >>> > >>> > Milton, > >>> > > >>> > A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process > and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it > thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include > any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >>> > > >>> > Lynn > >>> > > >>> > On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>> >> > >>> >> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that > Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract > termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >>> >> > >>> >> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would > like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > >>> >> > >>> >> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or > terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through > various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something > similar. > >>> >> > >>> >> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has > no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA > wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing > about splitting the IANA functions. > >>> >> > >>> >> --MM > >>> >> > >>> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat > Transcript > >>> >> > >>> >> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached > please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>> >> > >>> >> Best, > >>> >> > >>> >> Jennifer > >>> >> > >>> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>> >> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>> >> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>> >> > >>> >> Dear All, > >>> >> > >>> >> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll > call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: > >>> >> > >>> >> ICG Members > >>> >> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>> >> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>> >> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>> >> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>> >> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>> >> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>> >> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>> >> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>> >> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>> >> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>> >> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>> >> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>> >> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>> >> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>> >> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>> >> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>> >> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>> >> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>> >> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>> >> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>> >> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>> >> > >>> >> Liaisons > >>> >> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>> >> > >>> >> Apologies > >>> >> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>> >> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>> >> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>> >> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>> >> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>> >> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>> >> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>> >> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>> >> > >>> >> Best Regards, > >>> >> > >>> >> Jennifer > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>> >> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > Internal-cg mailing list > >>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Apr 29 12:15:47 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:15:47 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497DF096@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <39F5E142-BC69-4DE9-9AA3-FCA00CEBE265@LStAmour.org>, <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497DF096@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Catching up on this thread and having flashbacks of the 2013 RAA Negotiations. Wouldn't surprise me if ICANN Legal/Jones Day is calling the shots. I also support a statement from the ICG that any feedback on proposals must be provided in the open thru established community processes. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy > On Apr 28, 2015, at 13:14, Drazek, Keith wrote: > > I also support sending a statement and am fine with the proposed language. > > If this reported behavior has occurred and is undermining the work of the OCs, it is troubling and appears to raise questions about ICANN's commitment to a truly bottom-up, consensus-based community process. > > Regards, > Keith > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:52 PM > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Hi Alissa, all, > > I support sending a statement such as you propose. This is too important a principle and too important a task for us not to be vigilant, particularly when there are reports of statements that contradict previous agreements. > > Best, > Lynn > >> On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> Hi Kavouss, >> >> We established in our RFP that the transition proposals should be supported by community consensus, developed in the open, and that all interested stakeholders should get involved in them early on. What Milton is questioning and what the reports out from the OCs linked below point to is that ICANN staff may not be adhering to these tenets as we set them out. I wouldn’t expect them to come tell us that they aren’t adhering to them, which is why I’m asking whether we need to proactively reinforce our expectation that everyone adhere to them, including ICANN. As the body that put out the RFP, this seems well within our remit. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> >>> Dear Alissa >>> Thanks >>> Then why we intervene? >>> Why we need to make an statement unless ICANN ADDRESSS ITSELF TO icg? >>> I suggest no action at all >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>> Hi Kavouss, >>> >>> The statements from ICANN have been towards the operational communities engaged in negotiations with ICANN, not towards the ICG. See: >>> >>> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-de >>> velopments >>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/ >>> crisp_panel.pdf (starting at slide 18) >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-board-iana-ste >>> wardship-proposal-25apr15-en.pdf (p. 2-3) >>> >>> I’m not sure that I would expect a formal statement from ICANN about the two points that Milton raises — that’s why I’m wondering if the ICG should say something. Of course Elise and Kuo-Wei are free to comment on this idea as they see fit. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> Thank you for your comments >>>> 1. I do not think that any thing was sent from ICANN or ICANN Staff >>>> to ICGin regard with what Alissa said Quote " Shouldn’t we expect >>>> the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>>> Unquote >>>> I do not know what was the procedural validity of ICANN Staff to say so. The Board has a Liaison to ICG and I have not seen any formal comment from that Liasion . >>>> 2. I do not think that we should have any statement issued as we have not received any formal statement from ICANN. >>>> 3. In regard with separate arrangemnt between the operational >>>> communities and ICANN or a single arrangemnt , we should not jump to >>>> any conclusion >>>> 4 What Milton saying that IETF has already had the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated. >>>> We need to discuss all these after careful examination of the CWG >>>> output Pls then wait until we carefully review the matter and then >>>> to decide what appropriate actions to be taken Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2015-04-26 22:33 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >>>> >>>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>>> >>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Milton, >>>>> >>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>> >>>>> Lynn >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>>> >>>>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>>>> >>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>>> >>>>>> --MM >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat >>>>>> Transcript >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>>>>> >>>>>> ICG Members >>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>>> >>>>>> Liaisons >>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies >>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 29 13:57:02 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:57:02 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> Since there seems to be good support for us writing a statement as outlined below, I’ve written a draft below. I incorporated the suggestions from Jean-Jacques. Please comment. — ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus proposals through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal development process. At a time when all of the communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within established community processes. --- On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? > > Alissa > > On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >> Milton, >> >> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >> >> Lynn >> >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>> >>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>> >>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>> >>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>> >>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Jennifer >>> >>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>> >>> ICG Members >>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>> >>> Liaisons >>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>> >>> Apologies >>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Jennifer >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 29 13:58:34 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:58:34 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: FYI, these messages have been sent. https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. > > Thanks all. > > Alissa > > ---- > > Dear , > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: > > * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > --- > > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. >> I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: >> >> Dear , >> >> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >> >> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >> >> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >> >> * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. >> >> MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. >> >> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. >> >> MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” >> >> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >> >> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >> >> MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” >> >> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >> >> >> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >> >> MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” >> >> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. >> >> Here is my memo (attached) >> >> Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. >> But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. >> >> >> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM >> To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> >> I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> >> Let’s shoot for 1+3. >> >> If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. >> >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >> To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> >> I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >> I’d propose the following options: >> 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call >> 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >> 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. >> 4. 1 + 4 >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> Importance: High >> >> Hi all, >> >> As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. >> >> Alissa >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> From: Grace Abuhamad >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement >> Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >> Cc: Brenda Brewer >> >> Dear all, >> >> Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. >> >> Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. >> >> The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. >> >> Timeline for the upcoming week: >> Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. >> Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >> Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). >> Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) >> Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >> We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >> Grace >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 14:51:00 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:51:00 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7CEC85B5-0D45-4BBC-99CB-FDED4DC14F27@gmail.com> Alissa, Thank you for your second draft which is much clearer from the first one. Still I do not understand why ICG should be formally take an initiative on this matter and acts as caretaker of Protocol & Parameter as well a Number Communities? Are we more legal and mire knowledgeable than these communities that we deserved to be involved in these natters? I think your draft provide then sufficient elements to react if they were of any beed to be alerted by us . Just leave it there and not take any further actions at all. We do not have such a mandate and the stamps and caretaker actions should be misunderstood by other communities . If the two communities that you wish we alert have any concern why not leave it To them to comment yo the draft within the formal commenting process. Why we are more loyalist than the king? Let them to raise their concerns without Our formal intervention which nay be interpreted as interference. I hop you would kindly leave the matter at this stage without further actions Best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Apr 2015, at 15:58, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > FYI, these messages have been sent. > > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html > > >> On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. >> >> Thanks all. >> >> Alissa >> >> ---- >> >> Dear , >> >> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >> >> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >> >> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >> >> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. >> >> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. >> >> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >> >> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. >> >> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >> >> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >> >> >> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >> >> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> --- >> >> >>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. >>> I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>> >>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>> >>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >>> >>> * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. >>> >>> MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. >>> >>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. >>> >>> MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” >>> >>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>> >>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >>> >>> MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” >>> >>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >>> >>> >>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>> >>> MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” >>> >>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. >>> >>> Here is my memo (attached) >>> >>> Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. >>> But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. >>> >>> >>> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM >>> To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 >>> To: Milton L Mueller >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> Let’s shoot for 1+3. >>> >>> If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >>> To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >>> I’d propose the following options: >>> 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call >>> 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >>> 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. >>> 4. 1 + 4 >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> Importance: High >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> From: Grace Abuhamad >>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement >>> Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >>> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >>> Cc: Brenda Brewer >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. >>> >>> Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. >>> >>> The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. >>> >>> Timeline for the upcoming week: >>> Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. >>> Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >>> Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). >>> Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) >>> Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >>> We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >>> Grace >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 29 15:37:20 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:37:20 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <8a22d887c8a944f7a0f0f1a86aad976a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Alissa, Just a minor change to propose. After reading Annex G, I see that the proposed IAB representation on the CSC is based on their status as operator of the .arpa registry. The exact language is: "1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory." For clarity, and accounting for the possibility that all members of IETF IANAPLAN who discuss this may not read all 90 pages of the CWG proposal, why don't we change your wording to say: The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC in its capacity as registry operator for .arpa. --MM From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:04 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I've drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I've left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I'll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. Thanks all. Alissa ---- Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community's proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG --- On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. I would propose a few edits if it's not too late, see below: Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community's proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. MM: I would replace "possibility" with "likelihood." I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC's comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as "maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI." * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. MM: insert "periodically" between "reviewed" and "post-transition" 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: "The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function." If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He'd be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. Here is my memo (attached) Disclaimer: it's my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don't have to wade through 120 pages.... From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I'll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let's shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I'd propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 29 15:40:00 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or do you think it would be better if you did it? From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF FYI, these messages have been sent. https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: I've drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I've left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I'll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. Thanks all. Alissa ---- Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community's proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG --- On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. I would propose a few edits if it's not too late, see below: Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community's proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. MM: I would replace "possibility" with "likelihood." I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC's comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as "maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI." * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. MM: insert "periodically" between "reviewed" and "post-transition" 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: "The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function." If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He'd be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. Here is my memo (attached) Disclaimer: it's my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don't have to wade through 120 pages.... From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I'll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let's shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I'd propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 29 15:41:57 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:41:57 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Good statement. I support it as is. > -----Original Message----- > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship > transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions > with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in > their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from > the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested > parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the > transition proposals openly and transparently within the community > processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and > mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between > the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter > or deviate from the community consensus proposals through private > negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal > development process. At a time when all of the communities are > focused on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry > out discussions in an open manner within established community > processes. > > --- > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s > memo raised a question for me: > > > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very > important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity > that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities > and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from > ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the > terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community > as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal > of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that > these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not > transparent to the whole involved community.” > > > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the > same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a > statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all > interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions > about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the > community processes? And that includes opinions about the > acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual > arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions > operator? > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour > wrote: > > > >> Milton, > >> > >> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process > and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on > what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do > _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >> > >> Lynn > >> > >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>> > >>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that > Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of > contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >>> > >>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would > like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > >>> > >>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or > terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years > through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed > something similar. > >>> > >>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has > no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks > NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any > thing about splitting the IANA functions. > >>> > >>> --MM > >>> > >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat > Transcript > >>> > >>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached > please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Jennifer > >>> > >>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll > call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any > discrepancies: > >>> > >>> ICG Members > >>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>> > >>> Liaisons > >>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>> > >>> Apologies > >>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Jennifer > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 29 16:00:16 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:00:16 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <39F5E142-BC69-4DE9-9AA3-FCA00CEBE265@LStAmour.org> <25076273.2007.1430245067440.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <33bfeaf3423a4e259ca385c34d2b0e5c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] I have studied the whole sets of slides and not only those that you referred to in your mail. Pls kindly identify the particular subject 7 issues on which ICG needs to make a statement MM: 7 issues? We only need to address one: the fact that someone at ICANN is, in private negotiations, telling the CRISP team that fundamental elements of their proposal to ICG are not acceptable and must be changed. Are we dealing with the rights of having separate termination of agreement between IANA OPERATOR ( I saw three different references to Numbering, naming and protocol operators ) MM: That issue (termination) is the immediate point of conflict, apparently, between ICANN and some of the operational communities. But we are addressing the process issue, not the substantive issue. As noted above, it is not legitimate for ICANN or CRISP to negotiate changes to the number proposal unilaterally and outside of the public, open transition process. Who are these three operators? MM: I think you are referring to the 3 operational communities – names, numbers and protocols. In the short term, it looks like all 3 of them will use the current IANA department as their IANA functions service provider. But if they have the right of termination, then it is possible (though unlikely) that you will get 3 different IANA functions operators some time in the future. The current ICANN or PTI would have to really mess up badly for that to happen, but it is possible. Are we dealing with the quoataion that "NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” MM: No, we are not dealing with that issue. That was cited in the slide as an argument that someone in ICANN is using (privately) to try to alter the CRISP proposal. If that is a real argument, it has to be made publicly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Apr 29 16:06:24 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:06:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20664799.2461.1430323583098.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Alissa, thank you. I agree with your new draft. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" À: "Alissa Cooper" , "internal-cg at ianacg.org" Envoyé: Mercredi 29 Avril 2015 17:41:57 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Good statement. I support it as is. > -----Original Message----- > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship > transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions > with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in > their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from > the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested > parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the > transition proposals openly and transparently within the community > processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and > mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between > the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter > or deviate from the community consensus proposals through private > negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal > development process. At a time when all of the communities are > focused on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry > out discussions in an open manner within established community > processes. > > --- > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s > memo raised a question for me: > > > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very > important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity > that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities > and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from > ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the > terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community > as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal > of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that > these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not > transparent to the whole involved community.” > > > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the > same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a > statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all > interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions > about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the > community processes? And that includes opinions about the > acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual > arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions > operator? > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour > wrote: > > > >> Milton, > >> > >> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process > and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on > what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do > _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >> > >> Lynn > >> > >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>> > >>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that > Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of > contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >>> > >>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would > like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > >>> > >>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or > terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years > through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed > something similar. > >>> > >>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has > no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks > NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any > thing about splitting the IANA functions. > >>> > >>> --MM > >>> > >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat > Transcript > >>> > >>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached > please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Jennifer > >>> > >>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll > call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any > discrepancies: > >>> > >>> ICG Members > >>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>> > >>> Liaisons > >>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>> > >>> Apologies > >>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Jennifer > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 29 16:43:42 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:43:42 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> I can send a clarification. On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or do you think it would be better if you did it? > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > FYI, these messages have been sent. > > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html > > > On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. > > Thanks all. > > Alissa > > ---- > > Dear , > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: > > * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > --- > > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. > I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: > > Dear , > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: > > * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. > > MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. > > MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. > > Here is my memo (attached) > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wuknoben at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 16:59:29 2015 From: wuknoben at gmail.com (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:59:29 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting Message-ID: I also agree to Alissa's draft. I wonder whether it shouldn't read "...including ICANN staff and board..." Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 17:59:30 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:59:30 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Wolf, Please kindly read my comments .I agree with the issue burt I have difficulties to accept why ICG becomes spokeman of the Two Communities while the draft is on commenting period and every one including those two communities may raise any concerns but not in the name of ICG. We are not caretaker of Protocol and numbers commujnities. Such mission is not given in our charetr to us. We should remain neuteral visd a vis all three communities and not as an altering entity for any communities. They are expert, matured and well informed. We have not recieved any thing from CWG . Tks Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 18:59 GMT+02:00 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : > I also agree to Alissa's draft. I wonder whether it shouldn't read > "...including ICANN staff and board..." > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 18:05:17 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:05:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Dear Milton, Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering entity without being given any such mission. What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others. We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community at this stage Best Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > I can send a clarification. > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or do > you think it would be better if you did it? > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > FYI, these messages have been sent. > > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html > > > On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from > Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve > left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion > concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN > working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major > objections on the list. > > Thanks all. > > Alissa > > ---- > > Dear , > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the > IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has > recently put its proposal out for public comment < > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. > We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would > benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information > concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition > IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA > naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, > data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may > want to consider a number of associated implications: > > * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming > IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to > consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity > or allowing them to be separated. > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have > related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, > including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them > subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, > or re-contracting with PTI. > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in > the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about > including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG > proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your > community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus > joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed > post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities > be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing > reviews. > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related > services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering > resources communities. > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and > Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to > monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions > the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or > understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > --- > > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very > neutral language. > I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: > > Dear , > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the > IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has > recently put its proposal out for public comment < > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. > We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would > benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information > concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition > IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA > naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, > data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may > want to consider a number of associated implications: > > * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming > IANA functions would be moved to PTI. > > MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a > question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters > to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have > related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, > including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to > PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. > > MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with > ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an > existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in > the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about > including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition > and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the > opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related > services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering > resources communities. > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and > Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to > perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as > they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. > The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes > the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of > the IANA naming function.” > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or > understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead > discussion of CWG. > > Here is my memo (attached) > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was > banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you > don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > *From:* Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk > ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > *To:* Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* 20 April 2015 21:42 > *To:* Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead > the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be > 1 + 3 > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > *To:* 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all > of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am > supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an > appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss > on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I > was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for > RIRs/IETF > *Importance:* High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal > for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body > we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of > questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking > about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton > has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April > 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, > but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *Grace Abuhamad > > *Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement* > *Date: *April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following > key dates. *It is important for you to circulate this information to your > communities to make sure they are informed.* The announcement for the > Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list > when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now > *cancelled* (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send > the cancellation notice. > > *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > > - *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the draft > on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to > review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > - *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal > (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > - *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. *Note* > : *This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of > 30 days)*. > - *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high > intensity meetings) > - *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on > Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 18:21:17 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:21:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Alissa, Thank you again It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections sent top you since several days. In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those that supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus. Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages are sent in the Name of the whole ICG where there are objections Pls clartify the matter Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Milton, > Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. > Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering > entity without being given any such mission. > What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this > stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG > take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. > Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others. > We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal proposal > from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and analyse any > point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community at this stage > Best Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > >> I can send a clarification. >> >> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or >> do you think it would be better if you did it? >> >> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM >> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >> RIRs/IETF >> >> FYI, these messages have been sent. >> >> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html >> >> >> On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> >> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from >> Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve >> left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion >> concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN >> working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major >> objections on the list. >> >> Thanks all. >> >> Alissa >> >> ---- >> >> Dear , >> >> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the >> IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has >> recently put its proposal out for public comment < >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. >> We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would >> benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >> >> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information >> concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >> >> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition >> IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA >> naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, >> data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may >> want to consider a number of associated implications: >> >> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming >> IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to >> consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity >> or allowing them to be separated. >> >> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have >> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, >> including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them >> subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, >> or re-contracting with PTI. >> >> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in >> the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about >> including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >> >> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG >> proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your >> community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus >> joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. >> >> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed >> post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities >> be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing >> reviews. >> >> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related >> services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering >> resources communities. >> >> >> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and >> Annex G) >> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to >> monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions >> the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >> >> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or >> understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> --- >> >> >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very >> neutral language. >> I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: >> >> Dear , >> >> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the >> IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has >> recently put its proposal out for public comment < >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. >> We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would >> benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >> >> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information >> concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >> >> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition >> IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA >> naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, >> data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may >> want to consider a number of associated implications: >> >> * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the >> non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. >> >> MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a >> question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters >> to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. >> >> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have >> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, >> including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to >> PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. >> >> MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with >> ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an >> existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” >> >> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in >> the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about >> including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >> >> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition >> and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the >> opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >> >> MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” >> >> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related >> services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering >> resources communities. >> >> >> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and >> Annex G) >> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to >> perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as >> they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. >> The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >> >> MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes >> the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of >> the IANA naming function.” >> >> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or >> understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> >> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead >> discussion of CWG. >> >> Here is my memo (attached) >> >> Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was >> banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. >> But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so >> you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. >> >> >> *From:* Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk >> ] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM >> *To:* Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller >> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >> *Subject:* RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >> RIRs/IETF >> >> I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >> >> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >> *Sent:* 20 April 2015 21:42 >> *To:* Milton L Mueller >> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >> RIRs/IETF >> >> Let’s shoot for 1+3. >> >> If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead >> the discussion, please speak up. >> >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be >> 1 + 3 >> >> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >> *To:* 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >> RIRs/IETF >> >> I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all >> of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am >> supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an >> appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >> I’d propose the following options: >> 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss >> on the call >> 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >> 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I >> was going to be able to do. >> 4. 1 + 4 >> >> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >> RIRs/IETF >> *Importance:* High >> >> Hi all, >> >> As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal >> for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body >> we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of >> questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking >> about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton >> has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April >> 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, >> but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. >> >> Alissa >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >> *From: *Grace Abuhamad >> >> *Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement* >> *Date: *April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >> *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >> *Cc: *Brenda Brewer >> >> Dear all, >> >> Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following >> key dates. *It is important for you to circulate this information to >> your communities to make sure they are informed.* The announcement for >> the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the >> list when posted. >> >> Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now >> *cancelled* (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send >> the cancellation notice. >> >> *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. >> >> Timeline for the upcoming week: >> >> - *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the draft >> on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to >> review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. >> - *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal >> (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >> - *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. >> *Note*: *This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days >> instead of 30 days)*. >> - *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high >> intensity meetings) >> - *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on >> Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >> >> We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >> Grace >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 29 18:23:36 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:23:36 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7e117f9aee2a4e888c75d9abc95381c5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Kavouss, Again, it’s a process issue, we are making a statement about how the bottom up transition process should work. We are not acting on behalf of protocol or numbers communities. It’s just that because those two communities have already turned in their proposal (which names has not) they are the first to discover the process problems. If names had turned in their proposal first and had encountered these problems I am sure we would be proposing the same thing. I am having trouble understanding your resistance to this. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:00 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Dear Wolf, Please kindly read my comments .I agree with the issue burt I have difficulties to accept why ICG becomes spokeman of the Two Communities while the draft is on commenting period and every one including those two communities may raise any concerns but not in the name of ICG. We are not caretaker of Protocol and numbers commujnities. Such mission is not given in our charetr to us. We should remain neuteral visd a vis all three communities and not as an altering entity for any communities. They are expert, matured and well informed. We have not recieved any thing from CWG . Tks Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 18:59 GMT+02:00 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >: I also agree to Alissa's draft. I wonder whether it shouldn't read "...including ICANN staff and board..." Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 18:27:20 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:27:20 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <7e117f9aee2a4e888c75d9abc95381c5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <7e117f9aee2a4e888c75d9abc95381c5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Wolf Thank you reply Do you think that they are incapable to raise their concerns ? At the maximum those représentatives of these two communities may send thier views and not ICG IN TOTO. tHIS NOTE WAS NOT AGREED AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE CONSENSUS IT IS DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE THAT WE START TO TAKE A POSITION AT THIS STAGE OF COMMENTING PERIOD REGARDS Kavouss 2015-04-29 20:23 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller : > Hi, Kavouss, > > Again, it’s a process issue, we are making a statement about how the > bottom up transition process should work. > > We are not acting on behalf of protocol or numbers communities. It’s just > that because those two communities have already turned in their proposal > (which names has not) they are the first to discover the process problems. > If names had turned in their proposal first and had encountered these > problems I am sure we would be proposing the same thing. > > > > I am having trouble understanding your resistance to this. > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf Of > *Kavouss Arasteh > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:00 PM > *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > > > Dear Wolf, Please kindly read my comments .I agree with the issue burt I > have difficulties to accept why ICG becomes spokeman of the Two Communities > while the draft is on commenting period and every one including those two > communities may raise any concerns but not in the name of ICG. > > We are not caretaker of Protocol and numbers commujnities. > > Such mission is not given in our charetr to us. > > We should remain neuteral visd a vis all three communities and not as an > altering entity for any communities. > > They are expert, matured and well informed. > > We have not recieved any thing from CWG . > > Tks > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-04-29 18:59 GMT+02:00 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : > > I also agree to Alissa's draft. I wonder whether it shouldn't read > "...including ICANN staff and board..." > > > > Best regards > > > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Apr 29 19:23:28 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:23:28 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7401EA31-1FE1-4709-B0D2-F08B132A69DE@cooperw.in> Hi Kavouss, I did not receive any objections to sending the message to the IETF and RIRs, and I did see support for sending it. Alissa On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Alissa, > Thank you again > It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections sent top you since several days. > In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those that supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus. > Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages are sent in the Name of the whole ICG where there are objections > Pls clartify the matter > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Milton, > Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. > Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering entity without being given any such mission. > What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. > Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others. > We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community at this stage > Best Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > I can send a clarification. > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or do you think it would be better if you did it? >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> >> FYI, these messages have been sent. >> >> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html >> >> >> On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> >> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. >> >> Thanks all. >> >> Alissa >> >> ---- >> >> Dear , >> >> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >> >> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >> >> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >> >> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. >> >> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. >> >> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >> >> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. >> >> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >> >> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >> >> >> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >> >> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> --- >> >> >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. >> I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: >> >> Dear , >> >> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >> >> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >> >> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >> >> * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. >> >> MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. >> >> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. >> >> MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” >> >> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >> >> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >> >> MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” >> >> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >> >> >> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >> >> MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” >> >> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> >> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. >> >> Here is my memo (attached) >> >> Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. >> But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. >> >> >> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM >> To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> >> I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> >> Let’s shoot for 1+3. >> >> If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. >> >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >> To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> >> I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >> I’d propose the following options: >> 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call >> 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >> 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. >> 4. 1 + 4 >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >> Importance: High >> >> Hi all, >> >> As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. >> >> Alissa >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> From: Grace Abuhamad >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement >> Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >> Cc: Brenda Brewer >> >> Dear all, >> >> Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. >> >> Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. >> >> The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. >> >> Timeline for the upcoming week: >> Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. >> Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >> Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). >> Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) >> Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >> We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >> Grace >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Wed Apr 29 21:00:19 2015 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:00:19 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Kavouss, I understand also ICG commenting from a perspective taking into consideration all the three communities providing proposals. Each of these 3 elements is important to be prepared for fitting together. Thus I think ICG has a responsibility to take care about. If there is a feeling that our target may be endangered due to the treatment of one of the elements we should mention this. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 29.04.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh : > > Dear Wolf, Please kindly read my comments .I agree with the issue burt I have difficulties to accept why ICG becomes spokeman of the Two Communities while the draft is on commenting period and every one including those two communities may raise any concerns but not in the name of ICG. > We are not caretaker of Protocol and numbers commujnities. > Such mission is not given in our charetr to us. > We should remain neuteral visd a vis all three communities and not as an altering entity for any communities. > They are expert, matured and well informed. > We have not recieved any thing from CWG . > Tks > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 18:59 GMT+02:00 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : >> I also agree to Alissa's draft. I wonder whether it shouldn't read "...including ICANN staff and board..." >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 21:38:00 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:38:00 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <7401EA31-1FE1-4709-B0D2-F08B132A69DE@cooperw.in> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> <7401EA31-1FE1-4709-B0D2-F08B132A69DE@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Alissia I did object and you ignored that objection There are 30 ICG mnembers and I do not know apart from the handful colleagues that supoorted you whether the otehrs were objecting, sor abstention. In a domecratic process if the number of abstention is more than those supporting the process will not be carried forward. However, you openly and publicly ignored my objection and I will take the necessary measures at the next f2f meeting oposing to your ruluing . I have drafted a Consensus Building Document during and after Istanbu and there are clear procedure on how the consensus to be buils and what are the duties of the chair and co chairs in negotiating / discussing the matter with the objecting ICG member and trying to reconcile. All these procedure were totally ignored. I will also refer to that at the next f2f meeting You need to respect the views of the minority ..We are not at IETF IN WHICH YOUR SO-CALLED ROUGH CONSENSUS WORKS. UICG did not agreed to such a rought or soft or black or wghhiote consensus . Please apply the rule and please take a fair position. Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Hi Kavouss, > > I did not receive any objections to sending the message to the IETF and > RIRs, and I did see support for sending it. > > Alissa > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > > Alissa, > Thank you again > It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections sent > top you since several days. > In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those that > supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus. > Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages are > sent in the Name of the whole ICG where there are objections > Pls clartify the matter > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > >> Dear Milton, >> Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. >> Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering >> entity without being given any such mission. >> What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this >> stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG >> take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. >> Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others. >> We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal >> proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and >> analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community >> at this stage >> Best Regards >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> >>> I can send a clarification. >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or >>> do you think it would be better if you did it? >>> >>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM >>> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>> RIRs/IETF >>> >>> FYI, these messages have been sent. >>> >>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html >>> >>> >>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> >>> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from >>> Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve >>> left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion >>> concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN >>> working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major >>> objections on the list. >>> >>> Thanks all. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the >>> IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has >>> recently put its proposal out for public comment < >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. >>> We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would >>> benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>> >>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information >>> concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>> >>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition >>> IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA >>> naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, >>> data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may >>> want to consider a number of associated implications: >>> >>> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the >>> non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also >>> want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same >>> entity or allowing them to be separated. >>> >>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have >>> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, >>> including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them >>> subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, >>> or re-contracting with PTI. >>> >>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in >>> the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about >>> including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>> >>> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the >>> CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your >>> community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus >>> joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. >>> >>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed >>> post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities >>> be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing >>> reviews. >>> >>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related >>> services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering >>> resources communities. >>> >>> >>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and >>> Annex G) >>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to >>> monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions >>> the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>> >>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or >>> understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very >>> neutral language. >>> I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the >>> IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has >>> recently put its proposal out for public comment < >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. >>> We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would >>> benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>> >>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information >>> concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>> >>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition >>> IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA >>> naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, >>> data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may >>> want to consider a number of associated implications: >>> >>> * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the >>> non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. >>> >>> MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a >>> question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters >>> to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. >>> >>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have >>> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, >>> including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to >>> PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. >>> >>> MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with >>> ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an >>> existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” >>> >>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in >>> the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about >>> including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>> >>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed >>> post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities >>> be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing >>> reviews. >>> >>> MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” >>> >>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related >>> services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering >>> resources communities. >>> >>> >>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and >>> Annex G) >>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to >>> perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as >>> they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. >>> The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>> >>> MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG >>> proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the >>> performance of the IANA naming function.” >>> >>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or >>> understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead >>> discussion of CWG. >>> >>> Here is my memo (attached) >>> >>> Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was >>> banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. >>> But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so >>> you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. >>> >>> >>> *From:* Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk >>> ] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM >>> *To:* Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller >>> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> *Subject:* RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>> RIRs/IETF >>> >>> I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >>> >>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >>> *Sent:* 20 April 2015 21:42 >>> *To:* Milton L Mueller >>> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>> RIRs/IETF >>> >>> Let’s shoot for 1+3. >>> >>> If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead >>> the discussion, please speak up. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should >>> be 1 + 3 >>> >>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>> ] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >>> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >>> *To:* 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>> RIRs/IETF >>> >>> I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all >>> of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am >>> supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an >>> appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >>> I’d propose the following options: >>> 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss >>> on the call >>> 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >>> 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I >>> was going to be able to do. >>> 4. 1 + 4 >>> >>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >>> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >>> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>> RIRs/IETF >>> *Importance:* High >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal >>> for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body >>> we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of >>> questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking >>> about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton >>> has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April >>> 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, >>> but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Grace Abuhamad >>> >>> *Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement* >>> *Date: *April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >>> *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >>> *Cc: *Brenda Brewer >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the >>> following key dates. *It is important for you to circulate this >>> information to your communities to make sure they are informed.* The >>> announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will >>> circulate it to the list when posted. >>> >>> Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now >>> *cancelled* (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send >>> the cancellation notice. >>> >>> *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. >>> >>> Timeline for the upcoming week: >>> >>> - *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the >>> draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, >>> Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 >>> UTC. >>> - *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal >>> (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >>> - *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. >>> *Note*: *This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days >>> instead of 30 days)*. >>> - *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high >>> intensity meetings) >>> - *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on >>> Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >>> >>> We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >>> Grace >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 21:43:13 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:43:13 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Wold, Sorry you misunderstood the main part of my comment. Please kindly read it again Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 23:00 GMT+02:00 : > Dear Kavouss, > > I understand also ICG commenting from a perspective taking into > consideration all the three communities providing proposals. Each of these > 3 elements is important to be prepared for fitting together. Thus I think > ICG has a responsibility to take care about. If there is a feeling that our > target may be endangered due to the treatment of one of the elements we > should mention this. > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > Sent from my personal phone > > Am 29.04.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh >: > > Dear Wolf, Please kindly read my comments .I agree with the issue burt I > have difficulties to accept why ICG becomes spokeman of the Two Communities > while the draft is on commenting period and every one including those two > communities may raise any concerns but not in the name of ICG. > We are not caretaker of Protocol and numbers commujnities. > Such mission is not given in our charetr to us. > We should remain neuteral visd a vis all three communities and not as an > altering entity for any communities. > They are expert, matured and well informed. > We have not recieved any thing from CWG . > Tks > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 18:59 GMT+02:00 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : > >> I also agree to Alissa's draft. I wonder whether it shouldn't read >> "...including ICANN staff and board..." >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 30 02:08:11 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:08:11 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> <7401EA31-1FE1-4709-B0D2-F08B132A69DE@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <978AB39E-65A2-4788-A12C-81600E45C88A@cooperw.in> Hi Kavouss, Maybe your objection didn’t make it to the list? These are all the mails I see from you before I made the final call for objections on the text of the note to the IETF and RIRs: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000155.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000159.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000241.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000245.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000258.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000259.html None of them seem to contain an objection, unless I’m missing something? Thanks, Alissa On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Alissia > I did object and you ignored that objection > There are 30 ICG mnembers and I do not know apart from the handful colleagues that supoorted you whether the otehrs were objecting, sor abstention. > In a domecratic process if the number of abstention is more than those supporting the process will not be carried forward. > However, you openly and publicly ignored my objection and I will take the necessary measures at the next f2f meeting oposing to your ruluing . > I have drafted a Consensus Building Document during and after Istanbu and there are clear procedure on how the consensus to be buils and what are the duties of the chair and co chairs in negotiating / discussing the matter with the objecting ICG member and trying to reconcile. > All these procedure were totally ignored. > I will also refer to that at the next f2f meeting > You need to respect the views of the minority ..We are not at IETF IN WHICH YOUR SO-CALLED ROUGH CONSENSUS WORKS. > UICG did not agreed to such a rought or soft or black or wghhiote consensus . > Please apply the rule and please take a fair position. > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Hi Kavouss, > > I did not receive any objections to sending the message to the IETF and RIRs, and I did see support for sending it. > > Alissa > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> Alissa, >> Thank you again >> It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections sent top you since several days. >> In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those that supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus. >> Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages are sent in the Name of the whole ICG where there are objections >> Pls clartify the matter >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >> Dear Milton, >> Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. >> Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering entity without being given any such mission. >> What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. >> Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others. >> We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community at this stage >> Best Regards >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> I can send a clarification. >> >> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or do you think it would be better if you did it? >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> FYI, these messages have been sent. >>> >>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html >>> >>> >>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> >>> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. >>> >>> Thanks all. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>> >>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>> >>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >>> >>> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. >>> >>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. >>> >>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>> >>> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. >>> >>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >>> >>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >>> >>> >>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>> >>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. >>> I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>> >>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>> >>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >>> >>> * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. >>> >>> MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. >>> >>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. >>> >>> MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” >>> >>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>> >>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >>> >>> MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” >>> >>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >>> >>> >>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>> >>> MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” >>> >>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. >>> >>> Here is my memo (attached) >>> >>> Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. >>> But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. >>> >>> >>> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM >>> To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 >>> To: Milton L Mueller >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> Let’s shoot for 1+3. >>> >>> If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >>> To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >>> I’d propose the following options: >>> 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call >>> 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >>> 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. >>> 4. 1 + 4 >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> Importance: High >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> From: Grace Abuhamad >>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement >>> Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >>> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >>> Cc: Brenda Brewer >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. >>> >>> Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. >>> >>> The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. >>> >>> Timeline for the upcoming week: >>> Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. >>> Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >>> Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). >>> Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) >>> Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >>> We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >>> Grace >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 30 02:09:10 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:09:10 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Transition proposal for naming-related functions References: <5541692F.3070908@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <5AA122B0-5A19-4EA8-91F1-CDDEB274D135@cooperw.in> Forwarding with permission from Izumi. Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Transition proposal for naming-related functions > Date: April 29, 2015 at 4:28:47 PM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper > > Dear Alissa, > > > This is is very helpful for our review and for the call Nurani and I will have with the CWG-Stewardship Chairs today. > Thank you and the ICG for heighting and promptly sharing this comprehensive list of the points for the numbers community to consider for the names proposal . > > > Thanks, > Izumi > > > On 2015/04/29 22:26, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Dear RIR community, >> >> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >> >> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >> As in your community�s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >> >> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >> >> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. >> >> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. >> >> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >> >> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. >> >> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >> >> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >> >> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer at nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Apr 30 06:44:42 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:44:42 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> I have to admit that I share some of Kavouss' concerns about intervention here. Kuo Wei has undertaken to investigate. That said, I must also express the most extreme concern with respect to what it is being reported from the ARIN meeting. In my experience, it is normal business practice to have some - shall we call it - "Lawyer post-processing" of a set of principles, process or agreement to be contracted/under contract, but these reports, if true, appear to threaten the good faith process everyone is undertaking and therefore even the multi-stakeholder model itself. Indeed, at the heart of the NTIA criteria is that any new system must support and enhance the multistakeholder model. I would prefer the "statement" be addressed as a query. And couple with that a reminder of the essential part of the transition. This would be a more conciliatory approach to this issue. Best regards Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 1:42 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Good statement. I support it as is. > -----Original Message----- > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition > proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN > concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their > community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the > very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested > parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the > transition proposals openly and transparently within the community > processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, > and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between > the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter or > deviate from the community consensus proposals through private > negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal > development process. At a time when all of the communities are focused > on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry out > discussions in an open manner within established community processes. > > --- > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s > memo raised a question for me: > > > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very > important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity > that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and > does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? > If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of > the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part > of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of > the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these > negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to > the whole involved community.” > > > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the > same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a > statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all > interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions > about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the > community processes? And that includes opinions about the > acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual > arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour > wrote: > > > >> Milton, > >> > >> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process > and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what > it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ > include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >> > >> Lynn > >> > >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>> > >>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that > Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract > termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >>> > >>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I > would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > >>> > >>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or > terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years > through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed > something similar. > >>> > >>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has > no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks > NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include > any thing about splitting the IANA functions. > >>> > >>> --MM > >>> > >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat > Transcript > >>> > >>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached > please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Jennifer > >>> > >>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll > call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any > discrepancies: > >>> > >>> ICG Members > >>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>> > >>> Liaisons > >>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>> > >>> Apologies > >>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Jennifer > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu Apr 30 07:18:06 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:18:06 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <978AB39E-65A2-4788-A12C-81600E45C88A@cooperw.in> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> <7401EA31-1FE1-4709-B0D2-F08B132A69DE@cooperw.in> <978AB39E-65A2-4788-A12C-81600E45C88A@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <36ee2d2bb1dc4953a77c661e494996e9@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear All .. I've been away for a whole week and am still trying to catch up with my inbox and the discussions progressing on all mailing lists !! If I understand correctly, I think we're mixing 2 things here: - The statement to which Mr. Arasteh has objected and which did not go out yet, as far as I understand, and - The note which Alissa has already sent to the IETF and RIRs and to which I have seen no objections Hope this helps to resolve the misunderstanding or am I missing something? Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:08 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Hi Kavouss, Maybe your objection didn't make it to the list? These are all the mails I see from you before I made the final call for objections on the text of the note to the IETF and RIRs: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000155.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000159.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000241.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000245.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000258.html http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000259.html None of them seem to contain an objection, unless I'm missing something? Thanks, Alissa On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: Alissia I did object and you ignored that objection There are 30 ICG mnembers and I do not know apart from the handful colleagues that supoorted you whether the otehrs were objecting, sor abstention. In a domecratic process if the number of abstention is more than those supporting the process will not be carried forward. However, you openly and publicly ignored my objection and I will take the necessary measures at the next f2f meeting oposing to your ruluing . I have drafted a Consensus Building Document during and after Istanbu and there are clear procedure on how the consensus to be buils and what are the duties of the chair and co chairs in negotiating / discussing the matter with the objecting ICG member and trying to reconcile. All these procedure were totally ignored. I will also refer to that at the next f2f meeting You need to respect the views of the minority ..We are not at IETF IN WHICH YOUR SO-CALLED ROUGH CONSENSUS WORKS. UICG did not agreed to such a rought or soft or black or wghhiote consensus . Please apply the rule and please take a fair position. Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper >: Hi Kavouss, I did not receive any objections to sending the message to the IETF and RIRs, and I did see support for sending it. Alissa On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: Alissa, Thank you again It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections sent top you since several days. In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those that supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus. Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages are sent in the Name of the whole ICG where there are objections Pls clartify the matter Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh >: Dear Milton, Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering entity without being given any such mission. What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others. We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community at this stage Best Regards Kavouss 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper >: I can send a clarification. On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or do you think it would be better if you did it? From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF FYI, these messages have been sent. https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: I've drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I've left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I'll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. Thanks all. Alissa ---- Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community's proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG --- On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. I would propose a few edits if it's not too late, see below: Dear , You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) As in your community's proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. MM: I would replace "possibility" with "likelihood." I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC's comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as "maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI." * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. MM: insert "periodically" between "reviewed" and "post-transition" 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: "The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function." If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He'd be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. Here is my memo (attached) Disclaimer: it's my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don't have to wade through 120 pages.... From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I'll be on the call and have been following quite closely. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Let's shoot for 1+3. If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. I'd propose the following options: 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call 2. We could defer the discussion to another time 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. 4. 1 + 4 From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF Importance: High Hi all, As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > Dear all, Per the Action Plan discussion on today's call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. Timeline for the upcoming week: * Friday 17 April - Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. * Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). * Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). * Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) * Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Apr 30 07:29:30 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:29:30 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFBA@ACCAN01.accan.local> And by way of clarification, when I say "Lawyer post-processing" of a set of principles, process or agreement to be contracted/under contract, I mean translating into legal language only, or adding certain important legal phrases essential for enacting the intent of the principles, process and agreement itself. Not dictating new terms as has been asserted. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Narelle Clark Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 4:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting I have to admit that I share some of Kavouss' concerns about intervention here. Kuo Wei has undertaken to investigate. That said, I must also express the most extreme concern with respect to what it is being reported from the ARIN meeting. In my experience, it is normal business practice to have some - shall we call it - "Lawyer post-processing" of a set of principles, process or agreement to be contracted/under contract, but these reports, if true, appear to threaten the good faith process everyone is undertaking and therefore even the multi-stakeholder model itself. Indeed, at the heart of the NTIA criteria is that any new system must support and enhance the multistakeholder model. I would prefer the "statement" be addressed as a query. And couple with that a reminder of the essential part of the transition. This would be a more conciliatory approach to this issue. Best regards Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 1:42 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Good statement. I support it as is. > -----Original Message----- > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition > proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN > concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their > community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the > very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested > parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the > transition proposals openly and transparently within the community > processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, > and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between > the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter or > deviate from the community consensus proposals through private > negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal > development process. At a time when all of the communities are focused > on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry out > discussions in an open manner within established community processes. > > --- > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s > memo raised a question for me: > > > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very > important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity > that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and > does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? > If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of > the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part > of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of > the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these > negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to > the whole involved community.” > > > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the > same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a > statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all > interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions > about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the > community processes? And that includes opinions about the > acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual > arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? > > > > Alissa > > > > On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour > wrote: > > > >> Milton, > >> > >> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process > and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what > it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ > include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >> > >> Lynn > >> > >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>> > >>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that > Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract > termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >>> > >>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I > would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > >>> > >>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or > terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years > through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed > something similar. > >>> > >>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has > no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks > NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include > any thing about splitting the IANA functions. > >>> > >>> --MM > >>> > >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat > Transcript > >>> > >>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached > please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Jennifer > >>> > >>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll > call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any > discrepancies: > >>> > >>> ICG Members > >>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>> > >>> Liaisons > >>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>> > >>> Apologies > >>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Jennifer > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 10:19:11 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:19:11 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Alussa It seems that ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body agreed I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Good statement. I support it as is. > >> -----Original Message----- >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions >> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in >> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from >> the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested >> parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the >> transition proposals openly and transparently within the community >> processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and >> mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between >> the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter >> or deviate from the community consensus proposals through private >> negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal >> development process. At a time when all of the communities are >> focused on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry >> out discussions in an open manner within established community >> processes. >> >> --- >> >>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s >> memo raised a question for me: >>> >>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity >> that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities >> and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from >> ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the >> terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community >> as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal >> of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that >> these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not >> transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> >>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the >> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a >> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual >> arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions >> operator? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Milton, >>>> >>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process >> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do >> _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>> >>>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >> functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that >> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >> contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>>> >>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would >> like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>>> >>>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or >> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed >> something similar. >>>>> >>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has >> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks >> NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any >> thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat >> Transcript >>>>> >>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached >> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Jennifer >>>>> >>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll >> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >> discrepancies: >>>>> >>>>> ICG Members >>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>> >>>>> Liaisons >>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>> >>>>> Apologies >>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jennifer >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jari.arkko at piuha.net Thu Apr 30 12:12:18 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:12:18 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> Message-ID: <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Andrew Sullivan > Subject: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN > Date: 30 Apr 2015 12:57:53 GMT+1 > To: ianaplan at ietf.org > > Dear colleagues, > > This is an update to the community on the current discussion between > the IETF and ICANN regarding the annual SLA or Supplemental Agreement. > Each year, the IETF (via the IAOC) and ICANN specify a supplemental > agreement to our Memorandum of Understanding, in order to ensure that > any gaps or identified operational issues are addressed. > > As you are aware, inspired by the request from the IANA Stewardship > Transition Coordination Group (ICG), last year we formed the IANAPLAN > working group and achieved IETF consensus on the state of affairs with > IANA registries published under the direction of the IETF. That > consensus is captured in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09, which was > transmitted to the ICG. In that document the community sought to have > some facts acknowledged as part of any IANA transition plan: > > o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It > is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties > acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. > > o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol > parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent > operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as > part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry > out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the > current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA > [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent > operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of > a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that > ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to > minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries > or other resources currently located at iana.org. > > Understanding this consensus, the IETF leadership have been > negotiating with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in our > annual Service Level Agreement. After some iterations, we arrived at > text that we think captures the IETF consensus, but ICANN has informed > us that they are unable to agree to that text right now. ICANN told > us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly > put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. > > It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already > part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating > details of that existing agreement. We expect that as we continue > towards the orderly winding down of NTIA's involvement in the IANA > processes, our existing arrangements will be preserved, in keeping > with IETF consensus. > > We will of course continue to assess the situation, agreements, and > next steps, as well as developments in other operational > communities. We think that the existing agreement between ICANN and > the IETF makes good sense, and is good for the Internet. The IETF has > stated very strongly that it supports that existing agreement. That > strong support is a necessary condition for success, and we shall not > waver in our commitment to the IETF's continued responsible > stewardship of the protocol parameters registries. > > We note that the IETF community remains very satisfied with ICANN's > current level of performance. The existing supplemental agreement, > from last year, continues until it is replaced. > > We welcome your thoughts about this situation. We will continue to > use the IANAPLAN mailing list for these discussions. > > Best regards, > > Jari Arkko > IETF Chair > > Tobias Gondrom > IAOC Chair > > Andrew Sullivan > IAB Chair > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 12:31:17 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:31:17 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> Message-ID: Jari, Will this update message be in public soon? Kuo Wu > Jari Arkko 於 2015年4月30日 20:12 寫道： > > FYI > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Andrew Sullivan >> Subject: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN >> Date: 30 Apr 2015 12:57:53 GMT+1 >> To: ianaplan at ietf.org >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> This is an update to the community on the current discussion between >> the IETF and ICANN regarding the annual SLA or Supplemental Agreement. >> Each year, the IETF (via the IAOC) and ICANN specify a supplemental >> agreement to our Memorandum of Understanding, in order to ensure that >> any gaps or identified operational issues are addressed. >> >> As you are aware, inspired by the request from the IANA Stewardship >> Transition Coordination Group (ICG), last year we formed the IANAPLAN >> working group and achieved IETF consensus on the state of affairs with >> IANA registries published under the direction of the IETF. That >> consensus is captured in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09, which was >> transmitted to the ICG. In that document the community sought to have >> some facts acknowledged as part of any IANA transition plan: >> >> o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It >> is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties >> acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. >> >> o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol >> parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent >> operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as >> part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry >> out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the >> current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA >> [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent >> operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of >> a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that >> ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to >> minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries >> or other resources currently located at iana.org. >> >> Understanding this consensus, the IETF leadership have been >> negotiating with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in our >> annual Service Level Agreement. After some iterations, we arrived at >> text that we think captures the IETF consensus, but ICANN has informed >> us that they are unable to agree to that text right now. ICANN told >> us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly >> put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. >> >> It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already >> part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating >> details of that existing agreement. We expect that as we continue >> towards the orderly winding down of NTIA's involvement in the IANA >> processes, our existing arrangements will be preserved, in keeping >> with IETF consensus. >> >> We will of course continue to assess the situation, agreements, and >> next steps, as well as developments in other operational >> communities. We think that the existing agreement between ICANN and >> the IETF makes good sense, and is good for the Internet. The IETF has >> stated very strongly that it supports that existing agreement. That >> strong support is a necessary condition for success, and we shall not >> waver in our commitment to the IETF's continued responsible >> stewardship of the protocol parameters registries. >> >> We note that the IETF community remains very satisfied with ICANN's >> current level of performance. The existing supplemental agreement, >> from last year, continues until it is replaced. >> >> We welcome your thoughts about this situation. We will continue to >> use the IANAPLAN mailing list for these discussions. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jari Arkko >> IETF Chair >> >> Tobias Gondrom >> IAOC Chair >> >> Andrew Sullivan >> IAB Chair >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ianaplan mailing list >> Ianaplan at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jari.arkko at piuha.net Thu Apr 30 12:38:03 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:38:03 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> Message-ID: > Will this update message be in public soon? It is public. Here’s a link to the WG archives for easier sharing: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 12:43:02 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:43:02 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> Message-ID: <998CF714-3093-4AE1-85E5-A34A1F254A71@gmail.com> Thanks. Kuo Wu > Jari Arkko 於 2015年4月30日 20:38 寫道： > > >> Will this update message be in public soon? > > It is public. Here’s a link to the WG archives for easier sharing: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html > > Jari > From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 12:47:11 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:47:11 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> Message-ID: <1C9D9993-E235-4904-B584-3DA2412348AF@gmail.com> 1. The proposals of IETF and CRISP are in public and delivered to ICG already. They are in ICG's hands now. ICANN (including board) have no intention to intervene the ICG independent process. ICANN staff and Board continue to support independence of the ICG process. 2. The MOU or agreement between ICANN and IETF/NRO exist for many years and continue to exchange the performance information of IANA regularly. ICANN/IANA always do the best to meet the expectation of IETF and NRO, and continue to improve our service. This is one of key factors for the success operation of global internet. And it proves the current operation is benefit to the communities and global internet users. 3. Many on the ICANN Board support the sound engineering principle as recently articulated by Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, that for any working system change it as little as possible, and make gradual reforms over time. The Board continues to encourage simpler solutions where possible rather than creating new structures that require new legal frameworks and governance models. 4. Again, ICANN will continue to improve IANA service in response to the needs of the users of the services. At the same time, we strongly believe all the parties (include IETF, CRISP, CWG) have a belief "to maintain security, stability, and resiliency of global internet" to the benefit of all. 5. ICANN will support the proposals generated by the community that have reached consensus. Kuo Wu > Jari Arkko 於 2015年4月30日 20:12 寫道： > > FYI > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Andrew Sullivan >> Subject: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN >> Date: 30 Apr 2015 12:57:53 GMT+1 >> To: ianaplan at ietf.org >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> This is an update to the community on the current discussion between >> the IETF and ICANN regarding the annual SLA or Supplemental Agreement. >> Each year, the IETF (via the IAOC) and ICANN specify a supplemental >> agreement to our Memorandum of Understanding, in order to ensure that >> any gaps or identified operational issues are addressed. >> >> As you are aware, inspired by the request from the IANA Stewardship >> Transition Coordination Group (ICG), last year we formed the IANAPLAN >> working group and achieved IETF consensus on the state of affairs with >> IANA registries published under the direction of the IETF. That >> consensus is captured in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09, which was >> transmitted to the ICG. In that document the community sought to have >> some facts acknowledged as part of any IANA transition plan: >> >> o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It >> is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties >> acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. >> >> o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol >> parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent >> operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as >> part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry >> out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the >> current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA >> [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent >> operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of >> a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that >> ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to >> minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries >> or other resources currently located at iana.org. >> >> Understanding this consensus, the IETF leadership have been >> negotiating with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in our >> annual Service Level Agreement. After some iterations, we arrived at >> text that we think captures the IETF consensus, but ICANN has informed >> us that they are unable to agree to that text right now. ICANN told >> us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly >> put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. >> >> It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already >> part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating >> details of that existing agreement. We expect that as we continue >> towards the orderly winding down of NTIA's involvement in the IANA >> processes, our existing arrangements will be preserved, in keeping >> with IETF consensus. >> >> We will of course continue to assess the situation, agreements, and >> next steps, as well as developments in other operational >> communities. We think that the existing agreement between ICANN and >> the IETF makes good sense, and is good for the Internet. The IETF has >> stated very strongly that it supports that existing agreement. That >> strong support is a necessary condition for success, and we shall not >> waver in our commitment to the IETF's continued responsible >> stewardship of the protocol parameters registries. >> >> We note that the IETF community remains very satisfied with ICANN's >> current level of performance. The existing supplemental agreement, >> from last year, continues until it is replaced. >> >> We welcome your thoughts about this situation. We will continue to >> use the IANAPLAN mailing list for these discussions. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jari Arkko >> IETF Chair >> >> Tobias Gondrom >> IAOC Chair >> >> Andrew Sullivan >> IAB Chair >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ianaplan mailing list >> Ianaplan at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 30 13:47:56 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:47:56 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: <1C9D9993-E235-4904-B584-3DA2412348AF@gmail.com> References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> <1C9D9993-E235-4904-B584-3DA2412348AF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Kuo-wei: I am sorry but these responses show an almost Alice in Wonderland-like detachment from what is happening. Your comments fail to address the very serious concerns raised by the CRISP team, the RIRs and the IETF. My comments below: 1. The proposals of IETF and CRISP are in public and delivered to ICG already. They are in ICG's hands now. ICANN (including board) have no intention to intervene the ICG independent process. ICANN staff and Board continue to support independence of the ICG process. MM: ICANN has _already_ intervened in the process. It is telling the two communities who have submitted consensus proposals that it does not accept the proposals. We would appreciate it if you could do something to bridge the obvious gap between what ICANN staff is doing and what the board is saying. 2. The MOU or agreement between ICANN and IETF/NRO exist for many years and continue to exchange the performance information of IANA regularly. ICANN/IANA always do the best to meet the expectation of IETF and NRO, and continue to improve our service. This is one of key factors for the success operation of global internet. And it proves the current operation is benefit to the communities and global internet users. MM: You are dodging the issue. The issue is not the past agreement between ICANN and NRO, it is the _new_ proposal that the CRISP team has come up with. 3. Many on the ICANN Board support the sound engineering principle as recently articulated by Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, that for any working system change it as little as possible, and make gradual reforms over time. The Board continues to encourage simpler solutions where possible rather than creating new structures that require new legal frameworks and governance models. MM: Are you asserting that the proposals of IETF/IANAPLAN and the CRISP team are changing too much? Are you asserting that ICANN staff can, therefore, unilaterally veto their proposals? We do not see the board "encouraging" simpler solutions through persuasion, we see them attempting to veto solutions. Furthermore, the differences between the existing IETF MoU and supplemental SLA and the new one are tiny, almost unnoticeable. So even assuming ICANN had the right to override a community consensus to make things "simpler," ICANN's actions are not even consistent with this principle. 5. ICANN will support the proposals generated by the community that have reached consensus. MM: Then ICANN will support the CRISP proposal and the IANAPLAN proposal, and it will cease attempting to undermine or modify them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 14:11:33 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:11:33 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> <1C9D9993-E235-4904-B584-3DA2412348AF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Milton, We understand the agreement with IETF/NRO in the past, and also the proposals delivered to ICG very well. We are not intend, and we can not change the status of the proposals to ICG. And we also know ICG will based on the proposals you received from IETF/CRISP (and eventually CWG) to develop ICG proposal. If you don’t like lots of words in the last email, I simplify as : (1) we respect and support the ICG process based the proposals you received from IETF/CRISP and will receive from CWG. (2) describe what the operation in the past, and why the departing is not happened (if you don’t like it, I can take if off). Kuo Wu > Milton L Mueller 於 2015年4月30日 21:47 寫道： > > Kuo-wei: > I am sorry but these responses show an almost Alice in Wonderland-like detachment from what is happening. Your comments fail to address the very serious concerns raised by the CRISP team, the RIRs and the IETF. My comments below: >   <> > 1. The proposals of IETF and CRISP are in public and delivered to ICG already. They are in ICG's hands now. ICANN (including board) have no intention to intervene the ICG independent process. ICANN staff and Board continue to support independence of the ICG process. > > MM: ICANN has _already_ intervened in the process. It is telling the two communities who have submitted consensus proposals that it does not accept the proposals. We would appreciate it if you could do something to bridge the obvious gap between what ICANN staff is doing and what the board is saying. > > 2. The MOU or agreement between ICANN and IETF/NRO exist for many years and continue to exchange the performance information of IANA regularly. ICANN/IANA always do the best to meet the expectation of IETF and NRO, and continue to improve our service. This is one of key factors for the success operation of global internet. And it proves the current operation is benefit to the communities and global internet users. > > MM: You are dodging the issue. The issue is not the past agreement between ICANN and NRO, it is the _new_ proposal that the CRISP team has come up with. > > 3. Many on the ICANN Board support the sound engineering principle as recently articulated by Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, that for any working system change it as little as possible, and make gradual reforms over time. The Board continues to encourage simpler solutions where possible rather than creating new structures that require new legal frameworks and governance models. > > MM: Are you asserting that the proposals of IETF/IANAPLAN and the CRISP team are changing too much? Are you asserting that ICANN staff can, therefore, unilaterally veto their proposals? We do not see the board “encouraging” simpler solutions through persuasion, we see them attempting to veto solutions. Furthermore, the differences between the existing IETF MoU and supplemental SLA and the new one are tiny, almost unnoticeable. So even assuming ICANN had the right to override a community consensus to make things “simpler,” ICANN’s actions are not even consistent with this principle. > > > 5. ICANN will support the proposals generated by the community that have reached consensus. > > MM: Then ICANN will support the CRISP proposal and the IANAPLAN proposal, and it will cease attempting to undermine or modify them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 30 15:00:56 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:00:56 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <44A34526-6D50-4E65-96EF-315BF27E6573@cooperw.in> Hi Narelle, Could you elaborate a bit more about what sort of query would work here? What would we be asking and of whom? Thanks, Alissa On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > I have to admit that I share some of Kavouss' concerns about intervention here. Kuo Wei has undertaken to investigate. > > That said, I must also express the most extreme concern with respect to what it is being reported from the ARIN meeting. In my experience, it is normal business practice to have some - shall we call it - "Lawyer post-processing" of a set of principles, process or agreement to be contracted/under contract, but these reports, if true, appear to threaten the good faith process everyone is undertaking and therefore even the multi-stakeholder model itself. > > Indeed, at the heart of the NTIA criteria is that any new system must support and enhance the multistakeholder model. > > I would prefer the "statement" be addressed as a query. And couple with that a reminder of the essential part of the transition. > > This would be a more conciliatory approach to this issue. > > > Best regards > > > Narelle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 1:42 AM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Good statement. I support it as is. > >> -----Original Message----- >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition >> proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN >> concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their >> community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the >> very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested >> parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the >> transition proposals openly and transparently within the community >> processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, >> and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between >> the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter or >> deviate from the community consensus proposals through private >> negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal >> development process. At a time when all of the communities are focused >> on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry out >> discussions in an open manner within established community processes. >> >> --- >> >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s >> memo raised a question for me: >>> >>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity >> that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and >> does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? >> If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of >> the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part >> of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of >> the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these >> negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to >> the whole involved community.” >>> >>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the >> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a >> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual >> arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >> wrote: >>> >>>> Milton, >>>> >>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process >> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what >> it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ >> include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>> >>>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >> functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that >> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract >> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>>> >>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I >> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>>> >>>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or >> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed >> something similar. >>>>> >>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has >> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks >> NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat >> Transcript >>>>> >>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached >> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Jennifer >>>>> >>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll >> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >> discrepancies: >>>>> >>>>> ICG Members >>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>> >>>>> Liaisons >>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>> >>>>> Apologies >>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jennifer >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 30 15:02:36 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:02:36 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> Hi Kavouss, Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about contracts/agreements is noted. Thanks, Alissa On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Alussa > It seems that > ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. > Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs > Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body agreed > I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus tules were breached openly > Pls be careful and nit to do it again > Best regards > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Good statement. I support it as is. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>> >>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions >>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in >>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from >>> the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested >>> parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the >>> transition proposals openly and transparently within the community >>> processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and >>> mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between >>> the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter >>> or deviate from the community consensus proposals through private >>> negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal >>> development process. At a time when all of the communities are >>> focused on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry >>> out discussions in an open manner within established community >>> processes. >>> >>> --- >>> >>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s >>> memo raised a question for me: >>>> >>>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity >>> that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities >>> and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from >>> ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the >>> terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community >>> as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal >>> of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that >>> these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not >>> transparent to the whole involved community.” >>>> >>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the >>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a >>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual >>> arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions >>> operator? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Milton, >>>>> >>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process >>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do >>> _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>> >>>>> Lynn >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>>> >>>>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >>> functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that >>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >>> contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>>>> >>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would >>> like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or >>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed >>> something similar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has >>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks >>> NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any >>> thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>>> >>>>>> --MM >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat >>> Transcript >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached >>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll >>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >>> discrepancies: >>>>>> >>>>>> ICG Members >>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>>> >>>>>> Liaisons >>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies >>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 30 15:04:06 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:04:06 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: <36ee2d2bb1dc4953a77c661e494996e9@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> <7401EA31-1FE1-4709-B0D2-F08B132A69DE@cooperw.in> <978AB39E-65A2-4788-A12C-81600E45C88A@cooperw.in> <36ee2d2bb1dc4953a77c661e494996e9@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: Hi Manal, Thanks, that would explain it. I have indeed noted Kavouss’ objection to the ICG putting out a statement about contracts/agreements, which is about a different topic than the note that went to the IETF and RIRs. Alissa On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:18 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Dear All .. > > I’ve been away for a whole week and am still trying to catch up with my inbox and the discussions progressing on all mailing lists !! > If I understand correctly, I think we’re mixing 2 things here: > - The statement to which Mr. Arasteh has objected and which did not go out yet, as far as I understand, and > - The note which Alissa has already sent to the IETF and RIRs and to which I have seen no objections > > Hope this helps to resolve the misunderstanding or am I missing something? > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:08 AM > To: Kavouss Arasteh > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > Hi Kavouss, > > Maybe your objection didn’t make it to the list? These are all the mails I see from you before I made the final call for objections on the text of the note to the IETF and RIRs: > > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000155.html > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000159.html > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000241.html > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000245.html > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000258.html > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000259.html > > None of them seem to contain an objection, unless I’m missing something? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > > Alissia > I did object and you ignored that objection > There are 30 ICG mnembers and I do not know apart from the handful colleagues that supoorted you whether the otehrs were objecting, sor abstention. > In a domecratic process if the number of abstention is more than those supporting the process will not be carried forward. > However, you openly and publicly ignored my objection and I will take the necessary measures at the next f2f meeting oposing to your ruluing . > I have drafted a Consensus Building Document during and after Istanbu and there are clear procedure on how the consensus to be buils and what are the duties of the chair and co chairs in negotiating / discussing the matter with the objecting ICG member and trying to reconcile. > All these procedure were totally ignored. > I will also refer to that at the next f2f meeting > You need to respect the views of the minority ..We are not at IETF IN WHICH YOUR SO-CALLED ROUGH CONSENSUS WORKS. > UICG did not agreed to such a rought or soft or black or wghhiote consensus . > Please apply the rule and please take a fair position. > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Hi Kavouss, > > I did not receive any objections to sending the message to the IETF and RIRs, and I did see support for sending it. > > Alissa > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > > Alissa, > Thank you again > It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections sent top you since several days. > In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those that supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus. > Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages are sent in the Name of the whole ICG where there are objections > Pls clartify the matter > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Milton, > Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. > Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering entity without being given any such mission. > What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. > Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others. > We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community at this stage > Best Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > I can send a clarification. > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or do you think it would be better if you did it? > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > FYI, these messages have been sent. > > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html > > > On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. > > Thanks all. > > Alissa > > ---- > > Dear , > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: > > * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > --- > > > On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. > I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: > > Dear , > > You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: > > 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) > As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. > > 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) > The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: > > * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. > > MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. > > * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. > > MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” > > * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. > > 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) > The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. > > MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” > > 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) > The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. > > > 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) > The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. > > MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” > > If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. > > Here is my memo (attached) > > Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. > But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. > > > From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM > To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > Let’s shoot for 1+3. > > If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. > > Alissa > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > > I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. > I’d propose the following options: > 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call > 2. We could defer the discussion to another time > 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. > 4. 1 + 4 > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF > Importance: High > > Hi all, > > As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. > > Alissa > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement > Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > Cc: Brenda Brewer > > Dear all, > > Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. > > Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. > > The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. > > Timeline for the upcoming week: > Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. > Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). > Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). > Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) > Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). > We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, > Grace > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Apr 30 15:12:55 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:12:55 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling In-Reply-To: <6DA27216-BDF9-4B3A-BFF3-6188946B63A6@cooperw.in> References: <20150416094101.138F61C151D@smtp.notifymdm.com> <832D61E2-308C-43CD-B178-F6FCB108CF00@gmail.com> <241f7afe9e8b4838b994913514dac50a@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG> <55370152.50209@oracle.com> <6DA27216-BDF9-4B3A-BFF3-6188946B63A6@cooperw.in> Message-ID: We received no objections to this so the secretariat will be posting it to our site shortly. Alissa On Apr 23, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Thanks Joe. > > Let’s have the consensus call on this version then. If anyone objects to the publication of this document, please send email to the list by April 28 at 20:00 UTC. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:02 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > >> Colleagues: >> >> I have posted a clean reformatted proposed solution for the consensus building comments in drop box and attach it to this email for your convenience. >> >> Best- >> >> Joe >> >> On 4/18/2015 10:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> Dear Joe, >>> I fully agree with your way forward. >>> May you kindly edit the former draft in re ordering the text and deleting the element of giving option to OCs to elect to reply or not and replace it by your text to which I fully agree >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-18 14:38 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail : >>> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust .. >>> >>> Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense week of meetings .. >>> >>> I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be able to join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier .. >>> >>> >>> Appreciate being excused .. >>> >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> --Manal >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM >>> To: Alissa Cooper >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> Thank you for the message >>> >>> Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give the choice ti OCs to reply or not >>> >>> Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react. i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and copy the reply to ICG >>> >>> This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight that process as indicated in our charter. >>> >>> We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter. >>> >>> Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention. >>> >>> I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find a solution. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Ksvouss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what changes you all have agreed. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Alissa, >>> >>> Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored >>> >>> We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement. >>> >>> My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to take that into account >>> >>> I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning >>> >>> We need to be practical and comply with our charter. >>> >>> Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done. >>> >>> The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs . >>> >>> Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must be treated properly. >>> >>> Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the questions >>> >>> Then what is the role of the ICG? >>> >>> Community expects a proper action from ICG, >>> >>> The issue is not so difficult >>> >>> Pls do not make a mass of that. >>> >>> Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits >>> >>> Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not to diverge >>> >>> This is an important matter left from Singapore >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : >>> >>> Kavouss: >>> >>> We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us. >>> >>> As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus. We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts... >>> >>> I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward questions that should have better been addressed to the OC... >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >>> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM >>> To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] >>> CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >>> >>> Dear Joseph >>> Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments. >>> Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >>> > >>> > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment. >>> > >>> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > >>> > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se] >>> > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM >>> > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] >>> > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] >>> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Choices: >>> >> >>> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times. >>> >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question. As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the community. >>> >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding comments. >>> >> >>> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their questions heard. >>> > >>> > >>> > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.). >>> > >>> > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on whatever is sent in. >>> > >>> > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action. >>> > >>> > Patrik >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Internal-cg mailing list >>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Apr 30 15:36:08 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:36:08 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> <1C9D9993-E235-4904-B584-3DA2412348AF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497ECBD4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Based on these reports, it appears there may be, at a minimum, a significant disconnect between ICANN Board and ICANN Staff. Regards, gTLD Keith From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Wu Kuo-Wei Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:12 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN Milton, We understand the agreement with IETF/NRO in the past, and also the proposals delivered to ICG very well. We are not intend, and we can not change the status of the proposals to ICG. And we also know ICG will based on the proposals you received from IETF/CRISP (and eventually CWG) to develop ICG proposal. If you don’t like lots of words in the last email, I simplify as : (1) we respect and support the ICG process based the proposals you received from IETF/CRISP and will receive from CWG. (2) describe what the operation in the past, and why the departing is not happened (if you don’t like it, I can take if off). Kuo Wu Milton L Mueller > 於 2015年4月30日 21:47 寫道： Kuo-wei: I am sorry but these responses show an almost Alice in Wonderland-like detachment from what is happening. Your comments fail to address the very serious concerns raised by the CRISP team, the RIRs and the IETF. My comments below: 1. The proposals of IETF and CRISP are in public and delivered to ICG already. They are in ICG's hands now. ICANN (including board) have no intention to intervene the ICG independent process. ICANN staff and Board continue to support independence of the ICG process. MM: ICANN has _already_ intervened in the process. It is telling the two communities who have submitted consensus proposals that it does not accept the proposals. We would appreciate it if you could do something to bridge the obvious gap between what ICANN staff is doing and what the board is saying. 2. The MOU or agreement between ICANN and IETF/NRO exist for many years and continue to exchange the performance information of IANA regularly. ICANN/IANA always do the best to meet the expectation of IETF and NRO, and continue to improve our service. This is one of key factors for the success operation of global internet. And it proves the current operation is benefit to the communities and global internet users. MM: You are dodging the issue. The issue is not the past agreement between ICANN and NRO, it is the _new_ proposal that the CRISP team has come up with. 3. Many on the ICANN Board support the sound engineering principle as recently articulated by Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, that for any working system change it as little as possible, and make gradual reforms over time. The Board continues to encourage simpler solutions where possible rather than creating new structures that require new legal frameworks and governance models. MM: Are you asserting that the proposals of IETF/IANAPLAN and the CRISP team are changing too much? Are you asserting that ICANN staff can, therefore, unilaterally veto their proposals? We do not see the board “encouraging” simpler solutions through persuasion, we see them attempting to veto solutions. Furthermore, the differences between the existing IETF MoU and supplemental SLA and the new one are tiny, almost unnoticeable. So even assuming ICANN had the right to override a community consensus to make things “simpler,” ICANN’s actions are not even consistent with this principle. 5. ICANN will support the proposals generated by the community that have reached consensus. MM: Then ICANN will support the CRISP proposal and the IANAPLAN proposal, and it will cease attempting to undermine or modify them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 30 16:45:43 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:45:43 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> Message-ID: My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply object, one must have viable reasons to object. In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his resistance. I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me to take your objections seriously. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM > To: Kavouss Arasteh > Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Hi Kavouss, > > Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about > contracts/agreements is noted. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > > > Alussa > > It seems that > > ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. > > Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs > > Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body agreed > > I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus > > tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best > > regards Kavouss > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >> > >> Good statement. I support it as is. > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > >>> > >>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship > >>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun > discussions > >>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for > in > >>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has > >>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all > >>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions > >>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the > >>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, > >>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other > >>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions > operator. > >>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus > proposals > >>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the > >>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of > the > >>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the > same > >>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within > >>> established community processes. > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s > >>> memo raised a question for me: > >>>> > >>>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very > >>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an > >>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational > >>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect > the > >>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major > >>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an > >>> operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it > >>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected > operational > >>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are > going > >>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole > involved community.” > >>>> > >>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of > >>>> the > >>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out > a > >>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all > >>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions > >>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the > >>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the > >>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with > >>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the > IANA > >>> functions operator? > >>>> > >>>> Alissa > >>>> > >>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Milton, > >>>>> > >>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up > >>>>> process > >>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on > >>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they > >>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >>>>> > >>>>> Lynn > >>>>> > >>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > >>> functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that > >>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of > contract > >>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > >>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I > >>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested > this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or > >>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years > >>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has > proposed > >>> something similar. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG > >>>>>> has > >>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it > thinks > >>> NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include > >>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --MM > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > >>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and > Chat > >>> Transcript > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. > >>>>>> Attached > >>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jennifer > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear All, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance > >>>>>> roll > >>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any > >>> discrepancies: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ICG Members > >>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Liaisons > >>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Apologies > >>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jennifer > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Apr 30 17:17:56 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:17:56 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent of Alissa¹s actions. ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa has indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. Thanks‹ J. On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply >object, one must have viable reasons to object. >In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his >resistance. > >I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more >than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes >account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, >others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, >Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me to >take your objections seriously. > >--MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM >> To: Kavouss Arasteh >> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >> >> Hi Kavouss, >> >> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about >> contracts/agreements is noted. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> wrote: >> >> > Alussa >> > It seems that >> > ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. >> > Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs >> > Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body >>agreed >> > I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus >> > tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best >> > regards Kavouss >> > >> > >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> >> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Good statement. I support it as is. >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >>> >> >>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >> >>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun >> discussions >> >>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for >> in >> >>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >> >>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >> >>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >> >>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >> >>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >> >>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >> >>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions >> operator. >> >>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus >> proposals >> >>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >> >>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of >> the >> >>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the >> same >> >>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within >> >>> established community processes. >> >>> >> >>> --- >> >>> >> >>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s >> >>> memo raised a question for me: >> >>>> >> >>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >> >>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an >> >>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational >> >>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect >> the >> >>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major >> >>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an >> >>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it >> >>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected >> operational >> >>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are >> going >> >>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole >> involved community.² >> >>>> >> >>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of >> >>>> the >> >>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out >> a >> >>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >> >>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >> >>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >> >>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >> >>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >> >>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the >> IANA >> >>> functions operator? >> >>>> >> >>>> Alissa >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Milton, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up >> >>>>> process >> >>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >> >>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they >> >>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Lynn >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >> >>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that >> >>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >> contract >> >>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >> >>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I >> >>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested >> this. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or >> >>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >> >>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has >> proposed >> >>> something similar. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG >> >>>>>> has >> >>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >> thinks >> >>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >> >>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> --MM >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >> >>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >> >>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and >> Chat >> >>> Transcript >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. >> >>>>>> Attached >> >>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Jennifer >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >> >>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> >>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Dear All, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance >> >>>>>> roll >> >>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >> >>> discrepancies: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> ICG Members >> >>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >> >>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >> >>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >> >>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >> >>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >> >>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >> >>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >> >>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >> >>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >> >>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >> >>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >> >>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >> >>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >> >>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >> >>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >> >>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >> >>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >> >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >> >>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >> >>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >> >>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >> >>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >> >>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Liaisons >> >>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Apologies >> >>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >> >>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >> >>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >> >>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >> >>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >> >>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >> >>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >> >>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Best Regards, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Jennifer >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Internal-cg mailing list >> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org