From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Aug 1 00:21:34 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:21:34 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck (sent from my correct address) In-Reply-To: <065B3757-898A-4273-AAA2-B76CDF1E8498@LStAmour.org> References: <065B3757-898A-4273-AAA2-B76CDF1E8498@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <8785b9d18d6d453ba75fc99ca5bd9d9f@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Many thanks Lynn !! Appreciate that you have facilitated things by cross-checking with the updated Exec. Summary .. I have attached, and also saved on Dropbox, a couple of suggestions mainly to make the answers shorter .. Hope it's ok .. Agree to archiving the old version .. I'm working on a consolidated version (including your suggested edits, the below question and without the 2 questions you suggested to delete) and will circulate it shortly .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 8:20 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck (sent from my correct address) Hi Manal, I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox. I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review) Current question: 5. Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity? Possible edit: Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity? Draft response: "No, it does not. Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes. While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)." I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals". Can we archive these or should we just remove them? Best and thanks for all your work, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 26Jul15-MI-ALC (1) lsa-MI.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 62894 bytes Desc: ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 26Jul15-MI-ALC (1) lsa-MI.docx URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Aug 1 00:56:11 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:56:11 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] back in action, more or less In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome back online Milton and good luck with the unopened boxes :) !! Out of experience those stay for while ;) !! Good to know you'll be attending the LA meeting .. --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:41 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] back in action, more or less Colleagues Our move is far from complete, but at least I have internet access at home now (and some stories to tell about Comcast installation) and a functioning office at university, though at home no desk yet and a lot of unopened boxes. I apologize to you all for being unavailable during this crunch time but things will gradually improve. I have also decided to attend the LA meeting in person. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Aug 1 01:20:11 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:20:11 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <02eb01d0cbf8$3789cc90$a69d65b0$@icgsec.asia> Thank you Alissa, Mohamed, Kavouss and all the ICG members who have let us know on other occasions - the entire Secretariat team appreciates your thanks and recognition. We are happy to provide support to the ICG in every way, and value your guidance and feedback. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:15 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days - all of your efforts are very much appreciated. I'd also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails - thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. Alissa _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Aug 1 01:24:53 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 01:24:53 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ Consolidated version 01Aug15 .. Message-ID: Dear All .. The attached version, and on Dropbox, takes into consideration edits/feedback/remarks made by Alissa, Joe, Mary and Lynn .. Hope I didn't overlook anything .. Can the secretariat kindly help with the following, unless otherwise agreed by ICG members: - Archive old FAQ and link to it from the new one as highlighted in yellow the attached - Q17: Link directly to the diagram illustrating the 3-phased timeline on slide 27 of Fadi's presentation in BA, available at: file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/president-keynote-22jun15-en%20(1).pdf - Q20: Insert or link to the updated diagram of the OCs oversight models on slide 28 of the webinar slide deck Hope this accurately reflects all feedback received and consensus reached .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback: Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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: ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 01Aug15.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 56947 bytes Desc: ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 01Aug15.docx URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Sat Aug 1 01:55:48 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 01:55:48 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Webinars In-Reply-To: References: <18D9C2F231B9498EBA8934F409370615@Jorge>, Message-ID: FYI, the CCWG Accountability will have 2 webinars next week. The second proposal will be posted for public comment on Monday. WEBINAR: Briefing on 2nd Draft CCWG-Accountability Proposal The CCWG-Accountability will be publishing its 2nd draft for 40-day public comment on 3 August 2015. Community feedback is requested on this 2nd draft proposal of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability framework that the CCWG-Accountability has identified as essential to happen or be committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place (Work Stream 1). Community feedback will help the CCWG-Accountability to improve its proposal and carry on with next steps, including Chartering Organizations' endorsement of the CCWG-Accountability output before it is submitted to the ICANN Board during or after ICANN 54 in Dublin in October 2015. In order to brief the community on the contents of their 2nd draft proposal, the CCWG-Accountability Chairs will host two identical briefing webinars on 4 and 7 August at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: * 4 August from 19:00 – 21:00 UTC (time zone converter here) * 7 August from 07:00 – 09:00 UTC (time zone converter here) Webinars will be conducted in English. Live interpretation services are available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian. ________________________________ 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 acct-staff at icann.org and indicate: 1. The time at which you would like to attend the webinar; and 2. Your language request (if requested). Live interpretation services are available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian. Please note that the webinars will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be posted on the CCWG-Accountability Wiki here. ________________________________ Further information For further information about the CCWG-Accountability's work, please seehttps://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg. For further information about the related IANA Stewardship Transition, please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship or https://www.ianacg.org. From: > on behalf of "villa at reduniv.edu.cu" > Date: Friday, July 31, 2015 at 11:18 AM To: Accountability Cross Community > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Webinars Hi all, good morning! Is there any official communication about the CCGW Webinars next week? I would like to have it to share it with our respective communities. The one shared by Alissa Cooper about the ICG Webinars is a good example. Regards, Jorge _______________________________________________ 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: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Aug 1 05:14:01 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 07:14:01 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <02eb01d0cbf8$3789cc90$a69d65b0$@icgsec.asia> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> <02eb01d0cbf8$3789cc90$a69d65b0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <513F170D-4C49-4E38-BDA1-24F460ACE201@frobbit.se> On 1 Aug 2015, at 3:20, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Thank you Alissa, Mohamed, Kavouss and all the ICG members who have let us know on other occasions - the entire Secretariat team appreciates your thanks and recognition. > > We are happy to provide support to the ICG in every way, and value your guidance and feedback. And you do it extremely well! Thanks for everything Jennifer and the rest of the secretariat team! Now I hope you sleep much more than 8 hours a day, because you have indeed many hours of lost sleep I have noticed. Best, Patrik > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:15 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation > > I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. > > In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days - all of your efforts are very much appreciated. > > I'd also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. > > Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails - thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. > > I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. > > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Aug 1 05:21:59 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 07:21:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <34762995-27CE-4058-8963-3DE728347982@frobbit.se> Alissa, first of all thanks for your dedication to the task, and that you have delivered to such a high quality and degree. I have lost count of the number of days when we are on call, or chatting, in my mornings until you have finally said "I must get some sleep". I have taken over and try to keep things under control, and then too few hours later I hear "Good morning" again from you. Are you sure you are only one person? ;-) And, as you write below, all of this with Jennifer _always_ available. That said, one can push like this a few times, and each time during a short period of time. Now we have 40 days of relaxation (well...) before we get I think another push. Luckily we will have the f2f meeting which will make things easier to get things together. Thanks also to Mohamed for your dedication and specifically working so hard on the communication strategy. Finally: Thanks to all of you ICG members, and specifically to the ones that like Alissa pushed and delivered change requests, read documents and read the same documents again and again to hammer out everything from errors to spelling mistakes and colors on images. THANKS! Patrik On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:14, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. > > In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — all of your efforts are very much appreciated. > > I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. > > Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. > > I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > 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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Aug 1 06:07:56 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 02:07:56 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <34762995-27CE-4058-8963-3DE728347982@frobbit.se> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> <34762995-27CE-4058-8963-3DE728347982@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <55BC623C.5040001@oracle.com> And to you! Joe On 8/1/2015 1:21 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > Alissa, first of all thanks for your dedication to the task, and that you have delivered to such a high quality and degree. > > I have lost count of the number of days when we are on call, or chatting, in my mornings until you have finally said "I must get some sleep". I have taken over and try to keep things under control, and then too few hours later I hear "Good morning" again from you. > > Are you sure you are only one person? ;-) > > And, as you write below, all of this with Jennifer _always_ available. > > That said, one can push like this a few times, and each time during a short period of time. Now we have 40 days of relaxation (well...) before we get I think another push. Luckily we will have the f2f meeting which will make things easier to get things together. > > Thanks also to Mohamed for your dedication and specifically working so hard on the communication strategy. > > > Finally: Thanks to all of you ICG members, and specifically to the ones that like Alissa pushed and delivered change requests, read documents and read the same documents again and again to hammer out everything from errors to spelling mistakes and colors on images. > > THANKS! > > Patrik > > On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:14, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. >> >> In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — all of your efforts are very much appreciated. >> >> I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. >> >> Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. >> >> I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. >> >> 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 Sat Aug 1 06:24:38 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 02:24:38 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck In-Reply-To: <99E21174-BA88-4EC7-ACD7-704F5BDC8872@Internet-Matters.com> References: <99E21174-BA88-4EC7-ACD7-704F5BDC8872@Internet-Matters.com> Message-ID: <55BC6626.5000909@oracle.com> Lynn- On the overtaken by time; they should be archived. We need a complete record. Joe On 7/31/2015 2:18 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Hi Manal, > > I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox. > > I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review) > > Current question: > 5. Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity? > > Possible edit: Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity? > > Draft response: > > "No, it does not. Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes. While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)." > > I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals". Can we archive these or should we just remove them? > > Best and thanks for all your work, > > Lynn > > > > > On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > >> Dear All .. >> >> Congratulations on the launch of the public comment period !! Thanks to Alissa, ICG secretariat and all ICG colleagues .. >> >> Before you relax a bit :) , appreciate providing any comments you have on the FAQ by tonight, July 31 at 23:59 UTC, as suggested by Alissa in her below message .. >> >> Awaiting your feedback .. >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM >> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck >> >> We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback: >> >> Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC >> FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC >> >> I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week. >> >> 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 manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Aug 1 10:41:07 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 10:41:07 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck In-Reply-To: <55BC6626.5000909@oracle.com> References: <99E21174-BA88-4EC7-ACD7-704F5BDC8872@Internet-Matters.com> <55BC6626.5000909@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4dd16baf919c4195b0ab88d363330b04@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Do you mean archived as in keeping obsolete questions within the posted FAQ or archived as in keeping a snapshot of the old version of the FAQ as is and post an new updated version? We have this sentence at the beginning of the FAQ: "This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is intended as a guide only and is a living document." And thought we may add: "The previous version is archived here." Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 8:25 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Lynn- On the overtaken by time; they should be archived. We need a complete record. Joe On 7/31/2015 2:18 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Hi Manal, I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox. I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review) Current question: 5. Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity? Possible edit: Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity? Draft response: "No, it does not. Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes. While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)." I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals". Can we archive these or should we just remove them? Best and thanks for all your work, Lynn On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: Dear All .. Congratulations on the launch of the public comment period !! Thanks to Alissa, ICG secretariat and all ICG colleagues .. Before you relax a bit :) , appreciate providing any comments you have on the FAQ by tonight, July 31 at 23:59 UTC, as suggested by Alissa in her below message .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback: Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week. 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 Lynn at LStAmour.org Sat Aug 1 11:24:11 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:24:11 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Thank you Alissa, for all you do, and for "chairing us" so ably. And, of course, very, very big thanks to Patrik and Mohamed, Jennifer and all the secretariat. A tremendous effort by all. And, the team spirit is palpable. Very best, Lynn On Jul 31, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. > > In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — all of your efforts are very much appreciated. > > I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. > > Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. > > I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com Sat Aug 1 11:26:20 2015 From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:26:20 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck In-Reply-To: <4dd16baf919c4195b0ab88d363330b04@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <99E21174-BA88-4EC7-ACD7-704F5BDC8872@Internet-Matters.com> <55BC6626.5000909@oracle.com> <4dd16baf919c4195b0ab88d363330b04@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <586B27DB-351E-4DE1-B427-A0663925F0D9@Internet-Matters.com> On Aug 1, 2015, at 6:41 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Do you mean archived as in keeping obsolete questions within the posted FAQ or archived as in keeping a snapshot of the old version of the FAQ as is and post an new updated version? > > We have this sentence at the beginning of the FAQ: > “This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is intended as a guide only and is a living document.” > And thought we may add: > ”The previous version is archived here.” > > Thoughts? Hi Manal, The latter would be my preference. Thanks, Lynn From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Aug 1 13:48:30 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:48:30 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?REMINDER=3A_Deadlines_for_feedback_on_FAQ?= =?utf-8?q?_and_slide_deck?= Message-ID: <20150801134431.E563C1C1541@smtp.notifymdm.com> The latter. All the faq versions should be available with their date ranges... it would be confusing to keep the old questions in the same documemt..m Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 01 Aug 2015, 12:40PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Do you mean archived as in keeping obsolete questions within the posted FAQ or archived as in keeping a snapshot of the old version of the FAQ as is and post an new updated version? We have this sentence at the beginning of the FAQ: "This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is intended as a guide only and is a living document." And thought we may add: "The previous version is archived here." Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 8:25 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Lynn- On the overtaken by time; they should be archived. We need a complete record. Joe On 7/31/2015 2:18 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Hi Manal, I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox. I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review) Current question: 5. Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity? Possible edit: Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity? Draft response: "No, it does not. Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes. While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)." I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals". Can we archive these or should we just remove them? Best and thanks for all your work, Lynn On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: Dear All .. Congratulations on the launch of the public comment period !! Thanks to Alissa, ICG secretariat and all ICG colleagues .. Before you relax a bit :) , appreciate providing any comments you have on the FAQ by tonight, July 31 at 23:59 UTC, as suggested by Alissa in her below message .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback: Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week. 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 ________________________________ From glaser at cgi.br Sat Aug 1 15:20:59 2015 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:20:59 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <34762995-27CE-4058-8963-3DE728347982@frobbit.se> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> <34762995-27CE-4058-8963-3DE728347982@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <55BCE3DB.1050201@cgi.br> +1 phantastic team ...! (with one exception => HG) ============================================== On 01/08/15 02:21, Patrik Fältström wrote: > Alissa, first of all thanks for your dedication to the task, and that you have delivered to such a high quality and degree. > > I have lost count of the number of days when we are on call, or chatting, in my mornings until you have finally said "I must get some sleep". I have taken over and try to keep things under control, and then too few hours later I hear "Good morning" again from you. > > Are you sure you are only one person? ;-) > > And, as you write below, all of this with Jennifer _always_ available. > > That said, one can push like this a few times, and each time during a short period of time. Now we have 40 days of relaxation (well...) before we get I think another push. Luckily we will have the f2f meeting which will make things easier to get things together. > > Thanks also to Mohamed for your dedication and specifically working so hard on the communication strategy. > > > Finally: Thanks to all of you ICG members, and specifically to the ones that like Alissa pushed and delivered change requests, read documents and read the same documents again and again to hammer out everything from errors to spelling mistakes and colors on images. > > THANKS! > > Patrik > > On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:14, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. >> >> In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — all of your efforts are very much appreciated. >> >> I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. >> >> Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. >> >> I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. >> >> 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 kuoweiwu at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 00:29:25 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:29:25 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <6E61F09B-7EE3-4FDD-91B9-7E4E8A253948@gmail.com> Thanks a lot for Alissa to chair the ICG group, Patrick and Mohamed to be the vice chairs, and all the ICG members. Your great effort, dedication, and contribution to make this proposal ready. And also thanks to Jennifer and all the secretariats to help us in the last several months to handle all the administration work. As the liaison of ICANN board, thank you all! Kuo Wu 從我的 iPad 傳送 > Lynn St.Amour 於 2015年8月1日 19:24 寫道： > > Thank you Alissa, for all you do, and for "chairing us" so ably. > > And, of course, very, very big thanks to Patrik and Mohamed, Jennifer and all the secretariat. A tremendous effort by all. And, the team spirit is palpable. > > Very best, > Lynn > > > >> On Jul 31, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. >> >> In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — all of your efforts are very much appreciated. >> >> I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. >> >> Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. >> >> I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. >> >> 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 From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Aug 2 00:51:54 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 10:51:54 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <2E878D35-A055-49F0-8C08-1C729DA523CF@apnic.net> Special thanks to you Alissa, particularly when you have new things to think about these days! Also to Patrik and Mohammad, and Jennifer and Yannis too of course. Paul. On 1 Aug 2015, at 7:14, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your > dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape > for the release earlier today. > > In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her > efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all > night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything > ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague > direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much > needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a > lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — > all of your efforts are very much appreciated. > > I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and > willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get > everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so > invested in this process. > > Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the > proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In > particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last > week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. > > I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good > moment to say thank you. > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From apb at cequrux.com Sun Aug 2 05:10:18 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 09:10:18 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <20150802051018.GH4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Thank you to everybody involved. The chairs did a very good job of guiding discussion, finding consensus positions to resolve minor disagreements, editing documents, and keeping us all informed. The secretariat did a very good job of tracking comments, updating dropbox and web pages, and all the other support tasks. Members worked hard at reviewing and editing documents. --apb (Alan Barrett) From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun Aug 2 07:06:47 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 03:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <55BCE3DB.1050201@cgi.br> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> <34762995-27CE-4058-8963-3DE728347982@frobbit.se> <55BCE3DB.1050201@cgi.br> Message-ID: <55BDC187.5070606@oracle.com> +1 - no exceptions :-) On 8/1/2015 11:20 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > +1 phantastic team ...! (with one exception => HG) > > ============================================== > On 01/08/15 02:21, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> Alissa, first of all thanks for your dedication to the task, and that you have delivered to such a high quality and degree. >> >> I have lost count of the number of days when we are on call, or chatting, in my mornings until you have finally said "I must get some sleep". I have taken over and try to keep things under control, and then too few hours later I hear "Good morning" again from you. >> >> Are you sure you are only one person? ;-) >> >> And, as you write below, all of this with Jennifer _always_ available. >> >> That said, one can push like this a few times, and each time during a short period of time. Now we have 40 days of relaxation (well...) before we get I think another push. Luckily we will have the f2f meeting which will make things easier to get things together. >> >> Thanks also to Mohamed for your dedication and specifically working so hard on the communication strategy. >> >> >> Finally: Thanks to all of you ICG members, and specifically to the ones that like Alissa pushed and delivered change requests, read documents and read the same documents again and again to hammer out everything from errors to spelling mistakes and colors on images. >> >> THANKS! >> >> Patrik >> >> On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:14, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. >>> >>> In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — all of your efforts are very much appreciated. >>> >>> I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. >>> >>> Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. >>> >>> I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. >>> >>> 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 manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Aug 2 08:50:44 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:50:44 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck In-Reply-To: <20150801134431.E563C1C1541@smtp.notifymdm.com> References: <20150801134431.E563C1C1541@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: <1bc2d083b655488ea81a3950d15bc3fc@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Great .. thanks .. that is what was proposed already in the circulated version .. Dear All .. Can we consider this version, 'ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 01Aug15.doc', an agreed version and proceed accordingly ? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 3:49 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; Manal Ismail Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck The latter. All the faq versions should be available with their date ranges... it would be confusing to keep the old questions in the same documemt..m Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 01 Aug 2015, 12:40PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Do you mean archived as in keeping obsolete questions within the posted FAQ or archived as in keeping a snapshot of the old version of the FAQ as is and post an new updated version? We have this sentence at the beginning of the FAQ: "This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is intended as a guide only and is a living document." And thought we may add: "The previous version is archived here." Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 8:25 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Lynn- On the overtaken by time; they should be archived. We need a complete record. Joe On 7/31/2015 2:18 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Hi Manal, I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox. I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review) Current question: 5. Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity? Possible edit: Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity? Draft response: "No, it does not. Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes. While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)." I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals". Can we archive these or should we just remove them? Best and thanks for all your work, Lynn On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: Dear All .. Congratulations on the launch of the public comment period !! Thanks to Alissa, ICG secretariat and all ICG colleagues .. Before you relax a bit :) , appreciate providing any comments you have on the FAQ by tonight, July 31 at 23:59 UTC, as suggested by Alissa in her below message .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback: Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week. 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 ________________________________ From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Aug 2 09:20:39 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 09:20:39 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <55BDC187.5070606@oracle.com> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> <34762995-27CE-4058-8963-3DE728347982@frobbit.se> <55BCE3DB.1050201@cgi.br> <55BDC187.5070606@oracle.com> Message-ID: <6d4b0e9baf89448a998b4635b4ca2430@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Adding my thanks ... ... to you Alissa for all your efforts in capably chairing the group and organizing our work, ... to Patrik and Mohamed for their efforts and seamless coordination with the chair, ... to always-available-secretariat working tirelessly to keep instantaneous up-to-date records of our work and keep everyone informed, and ... to all members of the coordination group for the constructive discussions, collaborative spirit and dedication .. Great leadership !! Great team !! and Great secretariat !! Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 9:07 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appreciation +1 - no exceptions :-) On 8/1/2015 11:20 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: +1 phantastic team ...! (with one exception => HG) ============================================== On 01/08/15 02:21, Patrik Fältström wrote: Alissa, first of all thanks for your dedication to the task, and that you have delivered to such a high quality and degree. I have lost count of the number of days when we are on call, or chatting, in my mornings until you have finally said "I must get some sleep". I have taken over and try to keep things under control, and then too few hours later I hear "Good morning" again from you. Are you sure you are only one person? ;-) And, as you write below, all of this with Jennifer _always_ available. That said, one can push like this a few times, and each time during a short period of time. Now we have 40 days of relaxation (well...) before we get I think another push. Luckily we will have the f2f meeting which will make things easier to get things together. Thanks also to Mohamed for your dedication and specifically working so hard on the communication strategy. Finally: Thanks to all of you ICG members, and specifically to the ones that like Alissa pushed and delivered change requests, read documents and read the same documents again and again to hammer out everything from errors to spelling mistakes and colors on images. THANKS! Patrik On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:14, Alissa Cooper wrote: I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days - all of your efforts are very much appreciated. I'd also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails - thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. 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 mnuduma at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 00:32:17 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:32:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <6d4b0e9baf89448a998b4635b4ca2430@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <6d4b0e9baf89448a998b4635b4ca2430@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <1174415818.783567.1438561937694.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> +1@ All Great Leadership.  Great Team Great support from ICANN TeamUntold sacrifices and hard work by All. Please enjoy the short b r e a k !!!! HUGS! Mary Uduma On Sunday, August 2, 2015 10:19 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: #yiv8617163995 #yiv8617163995 -- _filtered #yiv8617163995 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8617163995 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8617163995 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8617163995 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv8617163995 #yiv8617163995 p.yiv8617163995MsoNormal, #yiv8617163995 li.yiv8617163995MsoNormal, #yiv8617163995 div.yiv8617163995MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv8617163995 a:link, #yiv8617163995 span.yiv8617163995MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8617163995 a:visited, #yiv8617163995 span.yiv8617163995MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8617163995 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;color:black;}#yiv8617163995 span.yiv8617163995HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;color:black;}#yiv8617163995 span.yiv8617163995EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv8617163995 .yiv8617163995MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv8617163995 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv8617163995 div.yiv8617163995WordSection1 {}#yiv8617163995 Adding my thanks … … to you Alissa for all your efforts in capably chairing the group and organizing our work, … to Patrik and Mohamed for their efforts and seamless coordination with the chair, … to always-available-secretariat working tirelessly to keep instantaneous up-to-date records of our work and keep everyone informed, and … to all members of the coordination group for the constructive discussions, collaborative spirit and dedication .. Great leadership !! Great team !! and Great secretariat !!   Kind Regards --Manal   From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org]On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 9:07 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appreciation   +1 - no exceptions :-) On 8/1/2015 11:20 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: +1 phantastic team ...! (with one exception => HG) ============================================== On 01/08/15 02:21, Patrik Fältström wrote: Alissa, first of all thanks for your dedication to the task, and that you have delivered to such a high quality and degree.   I have lost count of the number of days when we are on call, or chatting, in my mornings until you have finally said "I must get some sleep". I have taken over and try to keep things under control, and then too few hours later I hear "Good morning" again from you.   Are you sure you are only one person? ;-)   And, as you write below, all of this with Jennifer _always_ available.   That said, one can push like this a few times, and each time during a short period of time. Now we have 40 days of relaxation (well...) before we get I think another push. Luckily we will have the f2f meeting which will make things easier to get things together.   Thanks also to Mohamed for your dedication and specifically working so hard on the communication strategy.     Finally: Thanks to all of you ICG members, and specifically to the ones that like Alissa pushed and delivered change requests, read documents and read the same documents again and again to hammer out everything from errors to spelling mistakes and colors on images.   THANKS!      Patrik   On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:14, Alissa Cooper wrote:   I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today.   In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — all of your efforts are very much appreciated.   I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process.   Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting.   I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you.   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 jjs at dyalog.net Mon Aug 3 04:14:24 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 06:14:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <6d4b0e9baf89448a998b4635b4ca2430@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <31004000.68.1438575263063.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> ... and my warm appreciation as well, expressed by so many of us, most recently (and so well) by Manal! Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "joseph alhadeff" , internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Dimanche 2 Août 2015 11:20:39 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Appreciation Adding my thanks … … to you Alissa for all your efforts in capably chairing the group and organizing our work, … to Patrik and Mohamed for their efforts and seamless coordination with the chair, … to always-available-secretariat working tirelessly to keep instantaneous up-to-date records of our work and keep everyone informed, and … to all members of the coordination group for the constructive discussions, collaborative spirit and dedication .. Great leadership !! Great team !! and Great secretariat !! Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 9:07 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appreciation +1 - no exceptions :-) On 8/1/2015 11:20 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: +1 phantastic team ...! (with one exception => HG) ============================================== On 01/08/15 02:21, Patrik Fältström wrote: Alissa, first of all thanks for your dedication to the task, and that you have delivered to such a high quality and degree. I have lost count of the number of days when we are on call, or chatting, in my mornings until you have finally said "I must get some sleep". I have taken over and try to keep things under control, and then too few hours later I hear "Good morning" again from you. Are you sure you are only one person? ;-) And, as you write below, all of this with Jennifer _always_ available. That said, one can push like this a few times, and each time during a short period of time. Now we have 40 days of relaxation (well...) before we get I think another push. Luckily we will have the f2f meeting which will make things easier to get things together. Thanks also to Mohamed for your dedication and specifically working so hard on the communication strategy. Finally: Thanks to all of you ICG members, and specifically to the ones that like Alissa pushed and delivered change requests, read documents and read the same documents again and again to hammer out everything from errors to spelling mistakes and colors on images. THANKS! Patrik On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:14, Alissa Cooper wrote: I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for the release earlier today. In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and last-minute changes over these last days — all of your efforts are very much appreciated. I’d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this process. Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the proposal, other documents, and many, many mails — thank you! In particular, thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment to say thank you. 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 From apb at cequrux.com Mon Aug 3 04:40:10 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:40:10 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions Message-ID: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> I heard a remark that suggests people are unsure about whether public comments should answer ALL the questions. I suggest adding "You may answer as many or as few questions as you wish" in the following places: * Near the top of the comment form at * Just after "Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking comment are listed below" in the call for comments at --apb (Alan Barrett) From paf at frobbit.se Mon Aug 3 04:48:52 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 06:48:52 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions In-Reply-To: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: On 3 Aug 2015, at 6:40, Alan Barrett wrote: > I heard a remark that suggests people are unsure about whether public comments should answer ALL the questions. > > I suggest adding "You may answer as many or as few questions as you wish" in the following places: > > * Near the top of the comment form at > > * Just after "Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking comment > are listed below" in the call for comments at > Sounds reasonable. We chairs and secretariat will have a call later today (8 hours from now or so) and discuss some more details on practical things related to the input we might get, and we add this to the agenda. 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 alissa at cooperw.in Mon Aug 3 14:59:40 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:59:40 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <00af3bcf96774f7695d004df97f89e36@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <008501d0be53$a9fbf850$fdf3e8f0$@icgsec.asia> <55A55C94.6080309@oracle.com> <00af3bcf96774f7695d004df97f89e36@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: Coming back to this now that we are through the public comment launch — As far as I can tell there isn’t anything in this statement that is actionable for the ICG, but there is content that may be of interest to the CWG, CCWG, and RIR communities. I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists? Alissa On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Yes I agree .. very thorough and well-written .. > I believe it was shared on the CWG mailing list .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:02 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum > > A fairly thoughtful and well written comment. I wonder whether these issues were raised with the communities as part of their process? > > On 7/14/2015 12:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: > > 14 July – “AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers ” for ICG consideration” from Silvia Vivanco on behalf of Aziz Hilali. > > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-July/000002.html > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elise.gerich at icann.org Mon Aug 3 15:01:12 2015 From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:01:12 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation In-Reply-To: <6d4b0e9baf89448a998b4635b4ca2430@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in> <34762995-27CE-4058-8963-3DE728347982@frobbit.se> <55BCE3DB.1050201@cgi.br> <55BDC187.5070606@oracle.com> <6d4b0e9baf89448a998b4635b4ca2430@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: Adding my appreciation to all. -- Elise From: Internal-cg on behalf of Manal Ismail Date: Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:20 AM To: joseph alhadeff , IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appreciation > Adding my thanks Š > Š to you Alissa for all your efforts in capably chairing the group and > organizing our work, > Š to Patrik and Mohamed for their efforts and seamless coordination with the > chair, > Š to always-available-secretariat working tirelessly to keep instantaneous > up-to-date records of our work and keep everyone informed, and > Š to all members of the coordination group for the constructive discussions, > collaborative spirit and dedication .. > Great leadership !! Great team !! and Great secretariat !! > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph > alhadeff > Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 9:07 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appreciation > > +1 - no exceptions :-) > > On 8/1/2015 11:20 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >> >> +1 phantastic team ...! (with one exception => HG) >> >> ============================================== >> >> On 01/08/15 02:21, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> Alissa, first of all thanks for your dedication to the task, and that you >>> have delivered to such a high quality and degree. >>> >>> I have lost count of the number of days when we are on call, or chatting, in >>> my mornings until you have finally said "I must get some sleep". I have >>> taken over and try to keep things under control, and then too few hours >>> later I hear "Good morning" again from you. >>> >>> Are you sure you are only one person? ;-) >>> >>> And, as you write below, all of this with Jennifer _always_ available. >>> >>> That said, one can push like this a few times, and each time during a short >>> period of time. Now we have 40 days of relaxation (well...) before we get I >>> think another push. Luckily we will have the f2f meeting which will make >>> things easier to get things together. >>> >>> Thanks also to Mohamed for your dedication and specifically working so hard >>> on the communication strategy. >>> >>> >>> Finally: Thanks to all of you ICG members, and specifically to the ones that >>> like Alissa pushed and delivered change requests, read documents and read >>> the same documents again and again to hammer out everything from errors to >>> spelling mistakes and colors on images. >>> >>> THANKS! >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:14, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to everyone for your >>>> dedication to getting the proposal and supporting materials in shape for >>>> the release earlier today. >>>> >>>> In particular, I want to extend huge thanks to Jennifer for all of her >>>> efforts and especially her work over this last week. She stayed up all >>>> night on multiple nights (!) to make sure we would have everything ready in >>>> time and had to deal with sometimes-conflicting or vague direction from us >>>> chairs. Jennifer, I hope you are getting some much needed rest! And the >>>> same for the whole secretariat team. There were a lot of late nights and >>>> last-minute changes over these last days ‹ all of your efforts are very >>>> much appreciated. >>>> >>>> I¹d also like to thank Patrik and Mohamed for their support and willingness >>>> to be available pretty much any time day or night to get everything >>>> finished for the launch. We are lucky to have you both so invested in this >>>> process. >>>> >>>> Finally, to all ICG members who so attentively read and reviewed the >>>> proposal, other documents, and many, many mails ‹ thank you! In particular, >>>> thanks to Manal and Lynn for keeping the train moving last week while some >>>> of us were tied up at the IETF meeting. >>>> >>>> I know we have not yet finished our job but this seemed like a good moment >>>> to say thank you. >>>> >>>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Aug 3 15:01:55 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:01:55 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill References: <009a01d0c91b$7565cc10$60316430$@afilias.info> Message-ID: <276C0122-859E-46CB-BFFD-CE5C198B424D@cooperw.in> See the mail from Jonathan below. I’ve quoted below the analysis we previously wrote up but did not send to the CWG. Any objections to sending this back in response to Jonathan’s request? — Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a “final” document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate. Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG’s charter is that the group is open to any interested participant. Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.” We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard’s). -- Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message: > From: "Jonathan Robinson" > Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > Date: July 28, 2015 at 2:54:54 AM PDT > To: "'Alissa Cooper'" , > Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" > Reply-To: > > Alissa, > > Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. > > Jonathan > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > CWG, > > The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. > > The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Mon Aug 3 16:20:54 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:20:54 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill In-Reply-To: <276C0122-859E-46CB-BFFD-CE5C198B424D@cooperw.in> References: <009a01d0c91b$7565cc10$60316430$@afilias.info> <276C0122-859E-46CB-BFFD-CE5C198B424D@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE83A3@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Hi Alissa, That looks good to me. On his complaints about this not being a "consensus of the global multi-stakeholder community. Indeed, as I have pointed out previously, CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community," he does seem to miss the point. The process was based in ICANN through the chartering organisations and that is hardly surprising given the role of ICANN (and indeed the invitation from NTIA). However, the process was not closed, and was based around developing consensus - no votes and no sustained opposition on compromises that allowed the CWG to move forward. And that is probably the key feature supporting your third paragraph: his views had not really gained significant traction - it was one man's voice. One specific issue that probably needs to be addressed is his criticism on jurisdiction. This was discussed. There was general agreement that there was not enough support for proposing an immediate change of jurisdiction and not enough information on what would be the relevant merits of other jurisdictions and the criteria required from a given jurisdiction. It was also quite clearly not an issue that needed to be resolved to enable transition (these discussions have been going on for quite a few years within ICANN), but something that could be addressed in subsequent work. Thanks Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 August 2015 16:02 To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill See the mail from Jonathan below. I've quoted below the analysis we previously wrote up but did not send to the CWG. Any objections to sending this back in response to Jonathan's request? - Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a "final" document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate. Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG's charter is that the group is open to any interested participant. Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration." We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard's). -- Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: "Jonathan Robinson" > Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Date: July 28, 2015 at 2:54:54 AM PDT To: "'Alissa Cooper'" >, > Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" > Reply-To: > Alissa, Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Aug 3 17:48:01 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:48:01 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck In-Reply-To: <1bc2d083b655488ea81a3950d15bc3fc@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <20150801134431.E563C1C1541@smtp.notifymdm.com> <1bc2d083b655488ea81a3950d15bc3fc@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <019001d0ce14$8c5087a0$a4f196e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear Manal and All, Attached please find the FAQ with the following items added as requested by Manal (comments and questions regarding Q17inline): Can the secretariat kindly help with the following, unless otherwise agreed by ICG members: - Archive old FAQ and link to it from the new one as highlighted in yellow the attached - Q17: Link directly to the diagram illustrating the 3-phased timeline on slide 27 of Fadi's presentation in BA, available at: file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/president-keynote-22jun15-en%20(1).pdf JC: I have included the graphic here instead of linking to the Buenos Aires pdf file since I cannot link directly to slide 27. In addition, I have included a link to the updated and published timeline graphic v11. I note that the ICG has not published an updated timeline document (text) accompanying this graphic, so perhaps the wording around the answer to Q17 may need to be adjusted slightly? - Q20: Insert or link to the updated diagram of the OCs oversight models on slide 28 of the webinar slide deck Please advise regarding Q17. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 4:51 AM To: Joseph Alhadeff ; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Great .. thanks .. that is what was proposed already in the circulated version .. Dear All .. Can we consider this version, 'ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 01Aug15.doc', an agreed version and proceed accordingly ? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 3:49 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; Manal Ismail Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck The latter. All the faq versions should be available with their date ranges... it would be confusing to keep the old questions in the same documemt..m Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 01 Aug 2015, 12:40PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Do you mean archived as in keeping obsolete questions within the posted FAQ or archived as in keeping a snapshot of the old version of the FAQ as is and post an new updated version? We have this sentence at the beginning of the FAQ: "This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is intended as a guide only and is a living document." And thought we may add: "The previous version is archived here." Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 8:25 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Lynn- On the overtaken by time; they should be archived. We need a complete record. Joe On 7/31/2015 2:18 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Hi Manal, I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox. I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review) Current question: 5. Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity? Possible edit: Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity? Draft response: "No, it does not. Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes. While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)." I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals". Can we archive these or should we just remove them? Best and thanks for all your work, Lynn On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: Dear All .. Congratulations on the launch of the public comment period !! Thanks to Alissa, ICG secretariat and all ICG colleagues .. Before you relax a bit :) , appreciate providing any comments you have on the FAQ by tonight, July 31 at 23:59 UTC, as suggested by Alissa in her below message .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback: Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 01Aug15-JC.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 194536 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Aug 3 19:27:44 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:27:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC Message-ID: <01da01d0ce22$7a1daf00$6e590d00$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, These attached and linked sets of minutes have been previously circulated and out for your final approval. Please send in any edits by Friday 7 July by 23:59 UTC, if no further comments are submitted by then, these minutes will be considered approved and published on the ICG web site. -ICG F2F Meeting Day 1 v1: http://icgsec.asia/1NO0O1W -ICG F2F Meeting Day 2 v2: http://icgsec.asia/1h44DWA -ICG F2F wrap up session v3 - this includes the correction to Paul's in-person attendance: http://icgsec.asia/1SDgQmd -ICG Call 19 v2- these include Martin's edits with all changes accepted: http://icgsec.asia/1K17pTD Minutes to ICG Call 20 and 21 will be circulated under separate cover. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day1-18-june-2015-v1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41767 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day2-19-june-2015-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 40362 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 38515 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-9-july-2015-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 60807 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Mon Aug 3 22:11:16 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:11:16 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Public Comment on 2nd Draft Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498DDDD9@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> FYI, the CCWG Accountability public comment period #2 is now open. See below for details and webinar times. Best, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Hillary Jett Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 6:01 PM To: CCWG-Accountability Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment on 2nd Draft Proposal Hi all, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en. The dates of the public comment will be 3 August - 23:59 UTC 11 September 2015. Please be sure to share this widely! A reminder, the group has scheduled two Webinars this week: * 4 August from 19:00 - 21:00 UTC * 7 August from 07:00 - 09:00 UTC If you'd like to register for a Webinar, please send a note to acct-staff at icann.org. Additionally, all resources for the 2nd Draft Proposal can be found on the wiki space. This includes the full draft proposal, chapter by chapter break downs, translations (as they become available) and the XPLANE visual deck: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460 Thanks again all, and congratulations on a job well done! Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4712 bytes Desc: smime.p7s URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Mon Aug 3 22:55:59 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill In-Reply-To: <276C0122-859E-46CB-BFFD-CE5C198B424D@cooperw.in> References: <009a01d0c91b$7565cc10$60316430$@afilias.info> <276C0122-859E-46CB-BFFD-CE5C198B424D@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I would add to your first paragraph the following thought: There will be a public comment period on the three combined proposals of the operational communities. If the final CWG proposal deviated substantially from what the global multistakeholder community wants, that fact should be revealed. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:02 AM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill See the mail from Jonathan below. I've quoted below the analysis we previously wrote up but did not send to the CWG. Any objections to sending this back in response to Jonathan's request? - Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a "final" document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate. Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG's charter is that the group is open to any interested participant. Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration." We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard's). -- Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: "Jonathan Robinson" > Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Date: July 28, 2015 at 2:54:54 AM PDT To: "'Alissa Cooper'" >, > Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" > Reply-To: > Alissa, Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com Tue Aug 4 02:53:05 2015 From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:53:05 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE83A3@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <009a01d0c91b$7565cc10$60316430$@afilias.info> <276C0122-859E-46CB-BFFD-CE5C198B424D@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE83A3@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <1FDACA8A-AD65-41FB-A6DB-D938EE15C454@Internet-Matters.com> Hi Alissa, I support sending a note to Jonathan. Lynn On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: > Hi Alissa, > > That looks good to me. > > On his complaints about this not being a “consensus of the global multi-stakeholder community. Indeed, as I have pointed out previously, CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community,” he does seem to miss the point. The process was based in ICANN through the chartering organisations and that is hardly surprising given the role of ICANN (and indeed the invitation from NTIA). However, the process was not closed, and was based around developing consensus – no votes and no sustained opposition on compromises that allowed the CWG to move forward. > > And that is probably the key feature supporting your third paragraph: his views had not really gained significant traction – it was one man’s voice. > > One specific issue that probably needs to be addressed is his criticism on jurisdiction. This was discussed. There was general agreement that there was not enough support for proposing an immediate change of jurisdiction and not enough information on what would be the relevant merits of other jurisdictions and the criteria required from a given jurisdiction. It was also quite clearlynot an issue that needed to be resolved to enable transition (these discussions have been going on for quite a few years within ICANN), but something that could be addressed in subsequent work. > > Thanks > > Martin > > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 03 August 2015 16:02 > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > See the mail from Jonathan below. I’ve quoted below the analysis we previously wrote up but did not send to the CWG. Any objections to sending this back in response to Jonathan’s request? > > — > > Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a “final” document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate. > > Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG’s charter is that the group is open to any interested participant. > > > Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.” We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard’s). > > > -- > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Jonathan Robinson" > Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > Date: July 28, 2015 at 2:54:54 AM PDT > To: "'Alissa Cooper'" , > Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" > Reply-To: > > Alissa, > > Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. > > Jonathan > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > CWG, > > The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. > > The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Aug 4 04:59:51 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:59:51 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: References: <008501d0be53$a9fbf850$fdf3e8f0$@icgsec.asia> <55A55C94.6080309@oracle.com> <00af3bcf96774f7695d004df97f89e36@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBB6E96E@ACCAN01.accan.local> I can't see any reason why not. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:00 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement Coming back to this now that we are through the public comment launch - As far as I can tell there isn't anything in this statement that is actionable for the ICG, but there is content that may be of interest to the CWG, CCWG, and RIR communities. I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists? Alissa On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Manal Ismail > wrote: Yes I agree .. very thorough and well-written .. I believe it was shared on the CWG mailing list .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:02 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum A fairly thoughtful and well written comment. I wonder whether these issues were raised with the communities as part of their process? On 7/14/2015 12:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: Dear All, The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: 14 July - "AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers " for ICG consideration" from Silvia Vivanco on behalf of Aziz Hilali. http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-July/000002.html 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Tue Aug 4 09:33:40 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:33:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBB6E96E@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <24626351.528.1438680818111.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> I agree, this can be forwarded. This AFRALO-AFRICANN declaration is in French, and its authors may want to consider having it translated into English and other UN working languages, in order to command wider attention. I will write privately (not on behalf of ICG) to Aziz Halili and Silvia Vivanco to ask if that is under way and, if not, to suggest it. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Narelle Clark" À: "Alissa Cooper" , "Manal Ismail" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mardi 4 Août 2015 06:59:51 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement I can’t see any reason why not. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:00 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement Coming back to this now that we are through the public comment launch — As far as I can tell there isn’t anything in this statement that is actionable for the ICG, but there is content that may be of interest to the CWG, CCWG, and RIR communities. I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists? Alissa On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Manal Ismail < manal at tra.gov.eg > wrote: Yes I agree .. very thorough and well-written .. I believe it was shared on the CWG mailing list .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:02 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum A fairly thoughtful and well written comment. I wonder whether these issues were raised with the communities as part of their process? On 7/14/2015 12:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: Dear All, The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: 14 July – “AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers ” for ICG consideration” from Silvia Vivanco on behalf of Aziz Hilali. http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-July/000002.html 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 Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Tue Aug 4 09:51:24 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:51:24 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <24626351.528.1438680818111.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBB6E96E@ACCAN01.accan.local> <24626351.528.1438680818111.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE8E25@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> It was also posted in English at http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/47ef6fc6/attachment-0001.pdf -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: 04 August 2015 10:34 To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement I agree, this can be forwarded. This AFRALO-AFRICANN declaration is in French, and its authors may want to consider having it translated into English and other UN working languages, in order to command wider attention. I will write privately (not on behalf of ICG) to Aziz Halili and Silvia Vivanco to ask if that is under way and, if not, to suggest it. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Narelle Clark" À: "Alissa Cooper" , "Manal Ismail" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mardi 4 Août 2015 06:59:51 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement I can’t see any reason why not. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:00 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement Coming back to this now that we are through the public comment launch — As far as I can tell there isn’t anything in this statement that is actionable for the ICG, but there is content that may be of interest to the CWG, CCWG, and RIR communities. I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists? Alissa On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Manal Ismail < manal at tra.gov.eg > wrote: Yes I agree .. very thorough and well-written .. I believe it was shared on the CWG mailing list .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:02 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum A fairly thoughtful and well written comment. I wonder whether these issues were raised with the communities as part of their process? On 7/14/2015 12:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: Dear All, The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: 14 July – “AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers ” for ICG consideration” from Silvia Vivanco on behalf of Aziz Hilali. http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-July/000002.html 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 Aug 4 09:53:15 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:53:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE8E25@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <14703771.556.1438681991344.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Ah, thank you Martin! JJS. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Martin Boyle" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "Narelle Clark" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mardi 4 Août 2015 11:51:24 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement It was also posted in English at http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/47ef6fc6/attachment-0001.pdf -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: 04 August 2015 10:34 To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement I agree, this can be forwarded. This AFRALO-AFRICANN declaration is in French, and its authors may want to consider having it translated into English and other UN working languages, in order to command wider attention. I will write privately (not on behalf of ICG) to Aziz Halili and Silvia Vivanco to ask if that is under way and, if not, to suggest it. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Narelle Clark" À: "Alissa Cooper" , "Manal Ismail" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mardi 4 Août 2015 06:59:51 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement I can’t see any reason why not. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 1:00 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement Coming back to this now that we are through the public comment launch — As far as I can tell there isn’t anything in this statement that is actionable for the ICG, but there is content that may be of interest to the CWG, CCWG, and RIR communities. I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists? Alissa On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Manal Ismail < manal at tra.gov.eg > wrote: Yes I agree .. very thorough and well-written .. I believe it was shared on the CWG mailing list .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:02 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum A fairly thoughtful and well written comment. I wonder whether these issues were raised with the communities as part of their process? On 7/14/2015 12:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: Dear All, The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: 14 July – “AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers ” for ICG consideration” from Silvia Vivanco on behalf of Aziz Hilali. http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-July/000002.html 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 alissa at cooperw.in Tue Aug 4 16:34:33 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:34:33 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions In-Reply-To: References: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: I think I disagree. We already say that use of the web form itself is optional, so people can email in whatever comments they want. On the web form itself, we use red asterisks to indicate required fields and none of the question boxes have an asterisk. (We could make that asterisk explanation larger if we want.) The more complete answers we get the better, so I don’t particularly want to encourage people not to answer the questions, and I think the form and the instructions are clear about what the options are for commenting. Alissa On Aug 2, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 3 Aug 2015, at 6:40, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> I heard a remark that suggests people are unsure about whether public comments should answer ALL the questions. >> >> I suggest adding "You may answer as many or as few questions as you wish" in the following places: >> >> * Near the top of the comment form at >> >> * Just after "Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking comment >> are listed below" in the call for comments at >> > > Sounds reasonable. > > We chairs and secretariat will have a call later today (8 hours from now or so) and discuss some more details on practical things related to the input we might get, and we add this to the agenda. > > 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 Tue Aug 4 16:50:17 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 18:50:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions In-Reply-To: References: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <5F23E207-E537-4AC9-A6F0-3B173FE98574@gmail.com> I do not agree with Alan We need not yo add or modify ant thing CRISP snd IETF tried at every occasion to undermine the process as they do not believe the need fir transition of Stewardship Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 4 Aug 2015, at 18:34, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > I think I disagree. We already say that use of the web form itself is optional, so people can email in whatever comments they want. On the web form itself, we use red asterisks to indicate required fields and none of the question boxes have an asterisk. (We could make that asterisk explanation larger if we want.) The more complete answers we get the better, so I don’t particularly want to encourage people not to answer the questions, and I think the form and the instructions are clear about what the options are for commenting. > > Alissa > >> On Aug 2, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> >>> On 3 Aug 2015, at 6:40, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> >>> I heard a remark that suggests people are unsure about whether public comments should answer ALL the questions. >>> >>> I suggest adding "You may answer as many or as few questions as you wish" in the following places: >>> >>> * Near the top of the comment form at >>> >>> * Just after "Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking comment >>> are listed below" in the call for comments at >>> >> >> Sounds reasonable. >> >> We chairs and secretariat will have a call later today (8 hours from now or so) and discuss some more details on practical things related to the input we might get, and we add this to the agenda. >> >> 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 Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Tue Aug 4 17:16:39 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:16:39 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions In-Reply-To: References: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE9785@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I agree with Alissa: let's leave this to the people who are commenting. I think the instructions are clear enough. -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 04 August 2015 17:35 To: Patrik Fältström Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions I think I disagree. We already say that use of the web form itself is optional, so people can email in whatever comments they want. On the web form itself, we use red asterisks to indicate required fields and none of the question boxes have an asterisk. (We could make that asterisk explanation larger if we want.) The more complete answers we get the better, so I don't particularly want to encourage people not to answer the questions, and I think the form and the instructions are clear about what the options are for commenting. Alissa On Aug 2, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 3 Aug 2015, at 6:40, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> I heard a remark that suggests people are unsure about whether public comments should answer ALL the questions. >> >> I suggest adding "You may answer as many or as few questions as you wish" in the following places: >> >> * Near the top of the comment form at >> >> >> * Just after "Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking >> comment are listed below" in the call for comments at >> > ent-period/#callforcomment> > > Sounds reasonable. > > We chairs and secretariat will have a call later today (8 hours from now or so) and discuss some more details on practical things related to the input we might get, and we add this to the agenda. > > 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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Tue Aug 4 17:36:40 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:36:40 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE9785@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE9785@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <55C0F828.3030805@oracle.com> +1 On 8/4/2015 1:16 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: > I agree with Alissa: let's leave this to the people who are commenting. I think the instructions are clear enough. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 04 August 2015 17:35 > To: Patrik Fältström > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions > > I think I disagree. We already say that use of the web form itself is optional, so people can email in whatever comments they want. On the web form itself, we use red asterisks to indicate required fields and none of the question boxes have an asterisk. (We could make that asterisk explanation larger if we want.) The more complete answers we get the better, so I don't particularly want to encourage people not to answer the questions, and I think the form and the instructions are clear about what the options are for commenting. > > Alissa > > On Aug 2, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> On 3 Aug 2015, at 6:40, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >>> I heard a remark that suggests people are unsure about whether public comments should answer ALL the questions. >>> >>> I suggest adding "You may answer as many or as few questions as you wish" in the following places: >>> >>> * Near the top of the comment form at >>> >>> >>> * Just after "Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking >>> comment are listed below" in the call for comments at >>> >> ent-period/#callforcomment> >> Sounds reasonable. >> >> We chairs and secretariat will have a call later today (8 hours from now or so) and discuss some more details on practical things related to the input we might get, and we add this to the agenda. >> >> 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 From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Aug 4 19:38:58 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:38:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG face-to-face meeting #7 - travel support Message-ID: <015801d0ceed$35caab70$a1600250$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, ICG face-to-face meeting #7 will be held in Dublin, Ireland with sessions on 17 (Sat), 18 (Sun), 22 (Thurs) and 23 (Fri) October 2015. In accordance with ICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (16-24 October) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. We invite you please to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin at icgsec.asia by Sunday 9 August 2015 at 23:59 UTC. Please also let the Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Wed Aug 5 07:37:59 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:37:59 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions In-Reply-To: References: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <20150805073759.GH4788@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I think I disagree. We already say that use of the web form > itself is optional, so people can email in whatever comments > they want. On the web form itself, we use red asterisks to > indicate required fields and none of the question boxes have > an asterisk. (We could make that asterisk explanation larger > if we want.) The more complete answers we get the better, so I > don’t particularly want to encourage people not to answer the > questions, and I think the form and the instructions are clear > about what the options are for commenting. OK. The fact that I received a question about "do we have to answer all the questions?" is evidence that at least some people found that it was not clear enough, but perhaps they are a small minority. --apb (Alan Barrett) From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Aug 5 08:53:16 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:53:16 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] No need to answer all questions In-Reply-To: <5F23E207-E537-4AC9-A6F0-3B173FE98574@gmail.com> References: <20150803044010.GJ4040@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <5F23E207-E537-4AC9-A6F0-3B173FE98574@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Kavouss, With respect, these are very serious allegations, and I honestly have no idea how you can make such a claim. I must ask you to explain how you have reached this conclusion. Thanks, Paul Wilson APNIC. On 5 Aug 2015, at 2:50, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > I do not agree with Alan > We need not yo add or modify ant thing > CRISP snd IETF tried at every occasion to undermine the process as > they do not believe the need fir transition of Stewardship > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 4 Aug 2015, at 18:34, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> I think I disagree. We already say that use of the web form itself is >> optional, so people can email in whatever comments they want. On the >> web form itself, we use red asterisks to indicate required fields and >> none of the question boxes have an asterisk. (We could make that >> asterisk explanation larger if we want.) The more complete answers we >> get the better, so I don’t particularly want to encourage people >> not to answer the questions, and I think the form and the >> instructions are clear about what the options are for commenting. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Aug 2, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Patrik Fältström >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3 Aug 2015, at 6:40, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>> >>>> I heard a remark that suggests people are unsure about whether >>>> public comments should answer ALL the questions. >>>> >>>> I suggest adding "You may answer as many or as few questions as you >>>> wish" in the following places: >>>> >>>> * Near the top of the comment form at >>>> >>>> >>>> * Just after "Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking >>>> comment >>>> are listed below" in the call for comments at >>>> >>> >>> Sounds reasonable. >>> >>> We chairs and secretariat will have a call later today (8 hours from >>> now or so) and discuss some more details on practical things related >>> to the input we might get, and we add this to the agenda. >>> >>> 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Aug 5 16:50:19 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comments received Message-ID: <03bb01d0cf9e$d0e81f00$72b85d00$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, We have received 9 public comment submissions to-date. These are publicly archived here: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal- public-archive-of-submitted-comments/. Each submission, whether received via the web form or via the public-comments at ianacg.org email, is viewable and can be downloaded in a pdf format from the archive linked above. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Aug 5 20:07:51 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 13:07:51 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation Message-ID: The webinars are scheduled for: Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: - which webinar (or both) - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room Thanks, Alissa From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Aug 5 20:42:00 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 22:42:00 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55C27518.1050605@ripe.net> I plan to attend both but there are some uncertainties in my schedule. When I am present I am willing to answer questions both pitched and in the chat. Daniel On 5.08.15 22:07 , Alissa Cooper wrote: > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 5 20:46:02 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:46:02 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <047401d0cfbf$bef9a7c0$3cecf740$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The final version of the webinar slides referred to by Alissa below is attached and linked - Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1II4X3s. This will be uploaded to the webinar announcement on the ICG web site shortly. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 4:08 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation The webinars are scheduled for: Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We'd like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We'd also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention ("") for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: - which webinar (or both) - if you're willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you - if you're willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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: XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_Summary_08.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1747425 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Aug 5 20:55:38 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 22:55:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: <55C27518.1050605@ripe.net> Message-ID: <9703491.1254.1438808138060.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Hi Alissa, I'll be on both calls, and am willing to respond on the audio channel and, if need be, in the chat room. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 5 Août 2015 22:42:00 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation I plan to attend both but there are some uncertainties in my schedule. When I am present I am willing to answer questions both pitched and in the chat. Daniel On 5.08.15 22:07 , Alissa Cooper wrote: > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room > > 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 From mundy at tislabs.com Wed Aug 5 22:21:40 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:21:40 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alissa, I’m planning on being on both calls and am willing to answer questions aloud or in the Adobe Connect chat. Russ M On Aug 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Aug 5 22:31:23 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 22:31:23 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck In-Reply-To: <019001d0ce14$8c5087a0$a4f196e0$@icgsec.asia> References: <20150801134431.E563C1C1541@smtp.notifymdm.com> <1bc2d083b655488ea81a3950d15bc3fc@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <019001d0ce14$8c5087a0$a4f196e0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <379ad6b3ce8244fa81a525aea0d3e2a8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Thanks Jennifer and apologies for my late reply .. Here is my suggestion regarding the part you referenced in Q17: The ICG released an updated timeline graphic [PDF, 40 KB] on 6 July 2015. The ICG announced the release of an updated timeline [PDF, 60 KB] along with a graphic representation [XLSX, 44 KB] for the transition process. While this timeline timeline [PDF, 60 KB] is aggressive, every attempt has been made to be flexible and allow all communities to participate effectively. Is this ok? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 7:48 PM To: Manal Ismail; 'Joseph Alhadeff'; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Dear Manal and All, Attached please find the FAQ with the following items added as requested by Manal (comments and questions regarding Q17inline): Can the secretariat kindly help with the following, unless otherwise agreed by ICG members: - Archive old FAQ and link to it from the new one as highlighted in yellow the attached - Q17: Link directly to the diagram illustrating the 3-phased timeline on slide 27 of Fadi's presentation in BA, available at: file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/president-keynote-22jun15-en%20(1).pdf JC: I have included the graphic here instead of linking to the Buenos Aires pdf file since I cannot link directly to slide 27. In addition, I have included a link to the updated and published timeline graphic v11. I note that the ICG has not published an updated timeline document (text) accompanying this graphic, so perhaps the wording around the answer to Q17 may need to be adjusted slightly? - Q20: Insert or link to the updated diagram of the OCs oversight models on slide 28 of the webinar slide deck Please advise regarding Q17. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 4:51 AM To: Joseph Alhadeff >; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Great .. thanks .. that is what was proposed already in the circulated version .. Dear All .. Can we consider this version, 'ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 01Aug15.doc', an agreed version and proceed accordingly ? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 3:49 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; Manal Ismail Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck The latter. All the faq versions should be available with their date ranges... it would be confusing to keep the old questions in the same documemt..m Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 01 Aug 2015, 12:40PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Do you mean archived as in keeping obsolete questions within the posted FAQ or archived as in keeping a snapshot of the old version of the FAQ as is and post an new updated version? We have this sentence at the beginning of the FAQ: "This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is intended as a guide only and is a living document." And thought we may add: "The previous version is archived here." Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 8:25 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Lynn- On the overtaken by time; they should be archived. We need a complete record. Joe On 7/31/2015 2:18 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Hi Manal, I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox. I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review) Current question: 5. Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity? Possible edit: Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity? Draft response: "No, it does not. Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes. While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)." I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals". Can we archive these or should we just remove them? Best and thanks for all your work, Lynn On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail > wrote: Dear All .. Congratulations on the launch of the public comment period !! Thanks to Alissa, ICG secretariat and all ICG colleagues .. Before you relax a bit :) , appreciate providing any comments you have on the FAQ by tonight, July 31 at 23:59 UTC, as suggested by Alissa in her below message .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback: Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week. 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 mnuduma at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 22:40:57 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (mnuduma) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:40:57 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation Message-ID: <81bes60o29f59ut2obbypbrv.1438814056050@email.android.com> Plan to be in the two events and will partake in monitoring the Adobeconnect chat, including answering questions/responding to comments in the in the chat room. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Alissa Cooper Date: 05/08/2015 21:07 (GMT+01:00) To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation The webinars are scheduled for: Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: - which webinar (or both) - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room 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 manal at tra.gov.eg Wed Aug 5 22:55:07 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 22:55:07 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill In-Reply-To: <1FDACA8A-AD65-41FB-A6DB-D938EE15C454@Internet-Matters.com> References: <009a01d0c91b$7565cc10$60316430$@afilias.info> <276C0122-859E-46CB-BFFD-CE5C198B424D@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE83A3@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <1FDACA8A-AD65-41FB-A6DB-D938EE15C454@Internet-Matters.com> Message-ID: <13fbc872d3fa414e807584d189908d6d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> +1 .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 4:53 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Hi Alissa, I support sending a note to Jonathan. Lynn On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: > Hi Alissa, > > That looks good to me. > > On his complaints about this not being a "consensus of the global multi-stakeholder community. Indeed, as I have pointed out previously, CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community," he does seem to miss the point. The process was based in ICANN through the chartering organisations and that is hardly surprising given the role of ICANN (and indeed the invitation from NTIA). However, the process was not closed, and was based around developing consensus - no votes and no sustained opposition on compromises that allowed the CWG to move forward. > > And that is probably the key feature supporting your third paragraph: his views had not really gained significant traction - it was one man's voice. > > One specific issue that probably needs to be addressed is his criticism on jurisdiction. This was discussed. There was general agreement that there was not enough support for proposing an immediate change of jurisdiction and not enough information on what would be the relevant merits of other jurisdictions and the criteria required from a given jurisdiction. It was also quite clearlynot an issue that needed to be resolved to enable transition (these discussions have been going on for quite a few years within ICANN), but something that could be addressed in subsequent work. > > Thanks > > Martin > > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 03 August 2015 16:02 > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > See the mail from Jonathan below. I've quoted below the analysis we previously wrote up but did not send to the CWG. Any objections to sending this back in response to Jonathan's request? > > - > > Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a "final" document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate. > > Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG's charter is that the group is open to any interested participant. > > > Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration." We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard's). > > > -- > > Thanks, > Alissa > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Jonathan Robinson" > Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > Date: July 28, 2015 at 2:54:54 AM PDT > To: "'Alissa Cooper'" , > Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" > Reply-To: > > Alissa, > > Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. > > Jonathan > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > CWG, > > The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. > > The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > _______________________________________________ > 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 pwilson at apnic.net Wed Aug 5 23:27:18 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 09:27:18 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’ll be on the first session tomorrow (5am my time). Sorry, I can’t get to the second one. I can answer questions, obviously those related to numbers. Paul. On 6 Aug 2015, at 6:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version > attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 > minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the > questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. > We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat > window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via > chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for > participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they > want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be > other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member > responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you > are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this > message to indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch > to you > - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe > Connect chat room > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Aug 5 23:34:47 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck In-Reply-To: <379ad6b3ce8244fa81a525aea0d3e2a8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <20150801134431.E563C1C1541@smtp.notifymdm.com> <1bc2d083b655488ea81a3950d15bc3fc@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <019001d0ce14$8c5087a0$a4f196e0$@icgsec.asia> <379ad6b3ce8244fa81a525aea0d3e2a8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <04d301d0cfd7$524cfd80$f6e6f880$@icgsec.asia> Dear Manal and All, Attached and linked please find a clean copy - ICG-FAQ-update-05Aug15.docx. Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1NaWOst . Edits: - Q17: I have incorporated Manal's edits regarding Q17 - Q12: I have also deleted the following sentence from the answer to Q 12 since it points to an outdated Proposal Finalization Process - the ICG has not published an update to this document since the publication of timeline graphic v11 was decided upon instead. Deleted sentence: "Further details on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process is available here." If there are no further edits or changes received by tomorrow (Thursday 6 August, 23:59 UTC) this will be published on the ICG web site and sent to the translators. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 6:31 PM To: Jennifer Chung ; 'Joseph Alhadeff' ; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Thanks Jennifer and apologies for my late reply .. Here is my suggestion regarding the part you referenced in Q17: The ICG released an updated timeline graphic [PDF, 40 KB] on 6 July 2015. The ICG announced the release of an updated timeline [PDF, 60 KB] along with a graphic representation [XLSX, 44 KB] for the transition process. While this timeline timeline [PDF, 60 KB] is aggressive, every attempt has been made to be flexible and allow all communities to participate effectively. Is this ok? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 7:48 PM To: Manal Ismail; 'Joseph Alhadeff'; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Dear Manal and All, Attached please find the FAQ with the following items added as requested by Manal (comments and questions regarding Q17inline): Can the secretariat kindly help with the following, unless otherwise agreed by ICG members: - Archive old FAQ and link to it from the new one as highlighted in yellow the attached - Q17: Link directly to the diagram illustrating the 3-phased timeline on slide 27 of Fadi's presentation in BA, available at: file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/president-keynote-22jun15-en%20(1).pdf JC: I have included the graphic here instead of linking to the Buenos Aires pdf file since I cannot link directly to slide 27. In addition, I have included a link to the updated and published timeline graphic v11. I note that the ICG has not published an updated timeline document (text) accompanying this graphic, so perhaps the wording around the answer to Q17 may need to be adjusted slightly? - Q20: Insert or link to the updated diagram of the OCs oversight models on slide 28 of the webinar slide deck Please advise regarding Q17. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 4:51 AM To: Joseph Alhadeff >; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Great .. thanks .. that is what was proposed already in the circulated version .. Dear All .. Can we consider this version, 'ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 01Aug15.doc', an agreed version and proceed accordingly ? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 3:49 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org ; Manal Ismail Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck The latter. All the faq versions should be available with their date ranges... it would be confusing to keep the old questions in the same documemt..m Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com ) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 01 Aug 2015, 12:40PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Do you mean archived as in keeping obsolete questions within the posted FAQ or archived as in keeping a snapshot of the old version of the FAQ as is and post an new updated version? We have this sentence at the beginning of the FAQ: "This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is intended as a guide only and is a living document." And thought we may add: "The previous version is archived here." Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 8:25 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Lynn- On the overtaken by time; they should be archived. We need a complete record. Joe On 7/31/2015 2:18 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Hi Manal, I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox. I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review) Current question: 5. Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity? Possible edit: Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity? Draft response: "No, it does not. Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes. While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)." I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals". Can we archive these or should we just remove them? Best and thanks for all your work, Lynn On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail > wrote: Dear All .. Congratulations on the launch of the public comment period !! Thanks to Alissa, ICG secretariat and all ICG colleagues .. Before you relax a bit :) , appreciate providing any comments you have on the FAQ by tonight, July 31 at 23:59 UTC, as suggested by Alissa in her below message .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback: Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week. 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-FAQ-update-05Aug15.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 179816 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 23:40:31 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 07:40:31 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52A430AA-9C58-4AF5-AF98-7C37F2124D45@gmail.com> I can join the second one, but not the first one (it 3am for me). Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > Paul Wilson 於 2015年8月6日 07:27 寫道： > > I’ll be on the first session tomorrow (5am my time). Sorry, I can’t get to the second one. > > I can answer questions, obviously those related to numbers. > > Paul. > > >> On 6 Aug 2015, at 6:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> The webinars are scheduled for: >> >> Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC >> Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC >> >> Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. >> >> Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: >> >> - which webinar (or both) >> - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you >> - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Aug 5 23:47:47 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 19:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55C2A0A3.9090307@oracle.com> I will be in flight on the 6th, will try to make the call on the 7th, but it will be the middle of the night for me... On 8/5/2015 7:27 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > I’ll be on the first session tomorrow (5am my time). Sorry, I can’t > get to the second one. > > I can answer questions, obviously those related to numbers. > > Paul. > > > On 6 Aug 2015, at 6:07, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> The webinars are scheduled for: >> >> Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC >> Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC >> >> Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final >> version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we >> have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some >> of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as >> appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor >> the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and >> comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) >> for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that >> they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to >> be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member >> responses/engagement. >> >> Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you >> are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this >> message to indicate: >> >> - which webinar (or both) >> - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to >> you >> - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe >> Connect chat room >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Thu Aug 6 01:51:02 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 03:51:02 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks JJ, Daniel, Russ (and others) for being present. In discussions between us chairs, we have decided to ask people that want questions to be asked to either ask the question, or mark the questions as such in the chat (compared to just discussion in the chat). Such questions will be read, and answers given via voice. This so that the audio stream is a complete set of Q&A. It might be transcribed, translated and what not. Discussion in the chat, which very well might need participation from ICG members, is something else. And yes, your participation there is highly appreciated. But, we do not want to call what is discussed there are questions and answers. People will have the ability to tag a question in the chat as such, but that will then be brought to the audio portion of the call, as if the question have been asked. And yes, questions asked we chairs as presenters might very well want you other ICG members to answer! So stand by to both be active in the chat AND to answer questions that we pass on to you! Patrik On 6 Aug 2015, at 0:21, Russ Mundy wrote: > Alissa, > > I’m planning on being on both calls and am willing to answer questions aloud or in the Adobe Connect chat. > > Russ M > > On Aug 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> The webinars are scheduled for: >> >> Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC >> Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC >> >> Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. >> >> Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: >> >> - which webinar (or both) >> - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you >> - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room >> >> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com Thu Aug 6 02:03:14 2015 From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 22:03:14 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F8025FF-AD5A-42CC-9071-139D47C5A958@Internet-Matters.com> Hi Alissa, I plan on attending both webinars - happy to monitor chat room and/or respond to questions in both chat or voice. Best, Lynn On Aug 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Aug 6 05:46:44 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (mnuduma) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 06:46:44 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation Message-ID: Thank you Patrik for this clarification. I had started to ponder on  how the monitoring  of the chat room and responses to questIons thereon will be coordinated. I am happy to just follow the chat and flag to you Chairs any omissions or an unanswered questions/comments. It makes a lot of sense to have you Chairs answer all questions save for any reason(s) you elect to have any other member of the ICG intervene. Good arrangement. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Patrik Fältström Date: 06/08/2015 02:51 (GMT+01:00) To: Russ Mundy Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation Thanks JJ, Daniel, Russ (and others) for being present. In discussions between us chairs, we have decided to ask people that want questions to be asked to either ask the question, or mark the questions as such in the chat (compared to just discussion in the chat). Such questions will be read, and answers given via voice. This so that the audio stream is a complete set of Q&A. It might be transcribed, translated and what not. Discussion in the chat, which very well might need participation from ICG members, is something else. And yes, your participation there is highly appreciated. But, we do not want to call what is discussed there are questions and answers. People will have the ability to tag a question in the chat as such, but that will then be brought to the audio portion of the call, as if the question have been asked. And yes, questions asked we chairs as presenters might very well want you other ICG members to answer! So stand by to both be active in the chat AND to answer questions that we pass on to you!    Patrik On 6 Aug 2015, at 0:21, Russ Mundy wrote: > Alissa, > > I’m planning on being on both calls and am willing to answer questions aloud or in the Adobe Connect chat. > > Russ M > > On Aug 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> The webinars are scheduled for: >> >> Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC >> Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC >> >> Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. >> >> Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: >> >> - which webinar (or both) >> - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you >> - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room >> >> 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 mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Aug 6 06:03:16 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (mnuduma) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 07:03:16 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Message-ID: <4wo5qf9l47b3vqs4smqux1s5.1438840926988@email.android.com> I have no further comments. Mary Uduma Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From: Jennifer Chung Date: 06/08/2015 00:34 (GMT+01:00) To: 'Manal Ismail' ,'Joseph Alhadeff' ,internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck Dear Manal and All,   Attached and linked please find a clean copy - ICG-FAQ-update-05Aug15.docx.  Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1NaWOst .   Edits: -          Q17: I have incorporated Manal’s edits regarding Q17 -          Q12: I have also deleted the following sentence from the answer to Q 12 since it points to an outdated Proposal Finalization Process – the ICG has not published an update to this document since the publication of timeline graphic v11 was decided upon instead.  Deleted sentence: “Further details on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process is available here.”   If there are no further edits or changes received by tomorrow (Thursday 6 August, 23:59 UTC) this will be published on the ICG web site and sent to the translators.   Please let me know if you have any questions.   Best Regards,   Jennifer   From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 6:31 PM To: Jennifer Chung ; 'Joseph Alhadeff' ; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck   Thanks Jennifer and apologies for my late reply .. Here is my suggestion regarding the part you referenced in Q17:   The ICG released an updated timeline graphic [PDF, 40 KB] on 6 July 2015. The ICG announced the release of an updated timeline [PDF, 60 KB] along with a graphic representation [XLSX, 44 KB] for the transition process. While this timeline timeline [PDF, 60 KB] is aggressive, every attempt has been made to be flexible and allow all communities to participate effectively.   Is this ok?   Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 7:48 PM To: Manal Ismail; 'Joseph Alhadeff'; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck   Dear Manal and All,   Attached please find the FAQ with the following items added as requested by Manal (comments and questions regarding Q17inline):   Can the secretariat kindly help with the following, unless otherwise agreed by  ICG members: - Archive old FAQ and link to it from the new one as highlighted in yellow the attached   - Q17: Link directly to the diagram illustrating the 3-phased timeline on slide 27 of Fadi's presentation in BA, available at: file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/president-keynote-22jun15-en%20(1).pdf JC: I have included the graphic here instead of linking to the Buenos Aires pdf file since I cannot link directly to slide 27.  In addition, I have included a link to the updated and published timeline graphic v11.  I note that the ICG has not published an updated timeline document (text) accompanying this graphic, so perhaps the wording around the answer to Q17 may need to be adjusted slightly?   - Q20: Insert or link to the updated diagram of the OCs oversight models on slide 28 of the webinar slide deck   Please advise regarding Q17.   Best Regards,   Jennifer     -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 4:51 AM To: Joseph Alhadeff ; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck   Great .. thanks .. that is what was proposed already in the circulated version ..   Dear All .. Can we consider this version, 'ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 01Aug15.doc', an agreed version and proceed accordingly ?   Kind Regards --Manal   -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 3:49 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org; Manal Ismail Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck   The latter. All the faq versions should be available with their date ranges... it would be confusing to keep the old questions in the same documemt..m   Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)   -----Original Message-----   From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg] Received: Saturday, 01 Aug 2015, 12:40PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck   Do you mean archived as in keeping obsolete questions within the posted FAQ or archived as in keeping a snapshot of the old version of the FAQ as is and post an new updated version?   We have this sentence at the beginning of the FAQ: "This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is intended as a guide only and is a living document." And thought we may add: "The previous version is archived here."   Thoughts?   Kind Regards --Manal   From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 8:25 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck   Lynn-   On the overtaken by time; they should be archived.  We need a complete record.   Joe On 7/31/2015 2:18 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:   Hi Manal,       I reviewed the FAQ, it is attached and in dropbox.       I suggested a few edits based on previous edits to the Exec. Summary, and one quite substantive edit (immed. below to aid review)       Current question:   5.    Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by an entity?       Possible edit:   Does this imply that the current US government role will be replaced by a single entity?       Draft response:       "No, it does not.  Given the nature of the responsibilities that reside in the separate operational communities, the proposals reflect different subject matter and different desired outcomes.  While they are naturally different in many respects, they all include a future ability to change their IANA functions operator (while establishing requirements to help ensure that any such future changes will not result in operational disruptions)."       I also noted that there are a couple of questions that are overtaken by events - such as "will the ICG accept separate proposals".  Can we archive these or should we just remove them?       Best and thanks for all your work,       Lynn                     On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:       Dear All ..       Congratulations on the launch of the public comment period !! Thanks to Alissa, ICG secretariat and all ICG colleagues ..       Before you relax a bit :) , appreciate providing any comments you have on the FAQ by tonight, July 31 at 23:59 UTC, as suggested by Alissa in her below message ..       Awaiting your feedback ..       Kind Regards   --Manal       -----Original Message-----   From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper   Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:19 PM   To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group   Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck       We did not get to discuss the slide deck or the FAQ on the call, so we will need to finish those up on the mailing list. Here are the deadlines for providing feedback:       Slide deck: July 30 at 20:00 UTC   FAQ: July 31 at 23:59 UTC       I will summarize the feedback on the deck back to the designers after the deadline on Thursday and Manal has the pen for incorporating edits into the FAQ next week.       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 Aug 6 06:33:43 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:33:43 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6 Aug 2015, at 7:46, mnuduma wrote: > Thank you Patrik for this clarification. I had started to ponder on  how the monitoring  of the chat room and responses to questIons thereon will be coordinated. Secretariat will pick up what is tagged as questions, and pass it to us chairs/presenters. > I am happy to just follow the chat and flag to you Chairs any omissions or an unanswered questions/comments. It makes a lot of sense to have you Chairs answer all questions save for any reason(s) you elect to have any other member of the ICG intervene. > Good arrangement. In general Alissa, as chair, is doing the major "air traffic control" of the meeting. We have though divided the slides between us (Thursday me and Alissa, Friday me, Alissa and Mohamed). It is our goal to use you ICG members as much as possible. For example, when there are specific questions about the various proposals, we will most certainly ask ICG members active in each one of the OCs to respond. Patrik > Sent from Samsung tablet > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Patrik Fältström > Date: 06/08/2015 02:51 (GMT+01:00) > To: Russ Mundy > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation > > Thanks JJ, Daniel, Russ (and others) for being present. > > In discussions between us chairs, we have decided to ask people that want questions to be asked to either ask the question, or mark the questions as such in the chat (compared to just discussion in the chat). Such questions will be read, and answers given via voice. This so that the audio stream is a complete set of Q&A. It might be transcribed, translated and what not. > > Discussion in the chat, which very well might need participation from ICG members, is something else. And yes, your participation there is highly appreciated. > > But, we do not want to call what is discussed there are questions and answers. > > People will have the ability to tag a question in the chat as such, but that will then be brought to the audio portion of the call, as if the question have been asked. > > And yes, questions asked we chairs as presenters might very well want you other ICG members to answer! > > So stand by to both be active in the chat AND to answer questions that we pass on to you! > >    Patrik > > On 6 Aug 2015, at 0:21, Russ Mundy wrote: > >> Alissa, >> >> I’m planning on being on both calls and am willing to answer questions aloud or in the Adobe Connect chat. >> >> Russ M >> >> On Aug 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> The webinars are scheduled for: >>> >>> Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC >>> Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC >>> >>> Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes reserved for Q&A. We’d like to be able to pitch some of the questions we receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We’d also like to have a couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation convention (“”) for participants to use when writing a question into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG member responses/engagement. >>> >>> Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to indicate: >>> >>> - which webinar (or both) >>> - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you >>> - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room >>> >>> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Aug 6 08:00:04 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:00:04 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Re: AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> References: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> Message-ID: <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Apparently I have sent this response only to Alissa. Here it is again for the record. Daniel - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement To: Alissa Cooper From: Daniel Karrenberg Message-ID: <55C17102.3040306 at ripe.net> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 04:12:18 +0200 I am fine with bringing this to the attention of the operational communities. As a matter of principle we should make no assumptions about who has already seen it and include CWG. However, if we forward this, we have to be careful to do it for any other comment of an even roughly comparable nature. Daniel On 3.08.15 16:59 , Alissa Cooper wrote: > Coming back to this now that we are through the public comment > launch — As far as I can tell there isn’t anything in this > statement that is actionable for the ICG, but there is content > that may be of interest to the CWG, CCWG, and RIR communities. I > believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. > Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists? > > Alissa > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Manal Ismail > wrote: > >> Yes I agree .. very thorough and well-written .. I believe it >> was shared on the CWG mailing list .. >> >> Kind Regards --Manal >> >> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On >> Behalf Of *joseph alhadeff *Sent:* Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:02 PM >> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum >> >> >> A fairly thoughtful and well written comment. I wonder whether >> these issues were raised with the communities as part of their >> process? >> >> On 7/14/2015 12:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: >> >> 14 July – “AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Our views on the Proposed >> Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers ” for ICG >> consideration” from Silvia Vivanco on behalf of Aziz Hilali. >> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-July/000002. html >> >> >> 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVwxQEAAoJENDY5Emqa716/JEP/j3oZ/UeDPfAzrVwvWlFPzEl tVd/J/in4ywOuaKsS58xUsAKXa1+wK6V+DzWKlz5LbMMKs+SbnrUb5+SnYoK2EvT KVKXpt8+kQNS+9gYy975TIxgTJRIDbUfLyN9hJf84ljNK5MyAHKWirKn9MnSWje+ VomFsrKIOyaUiTf6caEibl69Z4ldH72VRUeRRK3/H8Gp7WguAbDpM2DlemYIpyU4 wS+rBrmgTNkhwBpUXbINIFfqDsxxdzdNSA7j0RGl953ntX7ubbxM65IA03afsDTg ohsdheNMJd0fS/HvrJO0B+QT4rCAArARuc3sp1zqQ4evVpvdsNb8yfcwacojoqiM RyQKafCTU81wFtVUacAXjLCAE8GZhc+/aeGIRwcPU1ecHB1gFb4vQz4PmyMJYnZ8 EQWH1Cl1SZby/PydTJQFQml+fy0Taiv3/0rE1DqYWcLRtG6SgHyZm2VMjDOxE1h/ h99QrDGvEM34OrEo0+YZx1vv68HE+qTvgERzRppD9devap62NdtoQaSin6d+Nvfb bcb9jNPjjDxcp1/iwRzWpO50bgfTqnfxXdyZbLC0H/XLUqmIs6qJofQmHuDQeO+D tDnmWBV1J1pslFizAOPiwUcNX3zLRR9APY1eCn7D/yiWpPQizl9ch7pJSgZFuiSa VHqnQXbcSTEGv7DomeTp =oRWr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From apb at cequrux.com Thu Aug 6 09:16:49 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:16:49 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150806091649.GL3844@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Wed, 05 Aug 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote: >The webinars are scheduled for: > >Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC >Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > [...] If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please > respond to this message to indicate: > >- which webinar (or both) >- if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you >- if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect chat room I intend to join the second webinar. I might also join the first webinar. When I am present, I am willing to answer questions. --apb (Alan Barrett) From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 6 10:44:14 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:44:14 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: <20150806091649.GL3844@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20150806091649.GL3844@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AEBEDF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Hi Alissa, Patrik & Mohamed, I was intending to join this evening's call, but have gone down with a raging sore throat and associated aches and pains. If I feel a bit better this evening I'll try to join, but please don't count on it. The same goes for Friday's 07.00 UTC call. The responses on the list seem to show that we are light on people who have been following the names proposal directly, so I feel a bit guilty about this. With luck some of the other ccNSO (in addition to Mary) and GNSO people will be there. My sincere apologies. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alan Barrett Sent: 06 August 2015 10:17 To: Alissa Cooper Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation On Wed, 05 Aug 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote: >The webinars are scheduled for: > >Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC >Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > [...] If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond > to this message to indicate: > >- which webinar (or both) >- if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to >you >- if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe >Connect chat room I intend to join the second webinar. I might also join the first webinar. When I am present, I am willing to answer questions. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 6 11:30:10 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:30:10 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AEBEDF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <20150806091649.GL3844@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AEBEDF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <90105258-0296-4246-8C7D-3DC4547B2C89@gmail.com> Dear all I wish to join both Pls kindly make dusl up Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Aug 2015, at 12:44, Martin Boyle wrote: > > Hi Alissa, Patrik & Mohamed, > > I was intending to join this evening's call, but have gone down with a raging sore throat and associated aches and pains. If I feel a bit better this evening I'll try to join, but please don't count on it. The same goes for Friday's 07.00 UTC call. > > The responses on the list seem to show that we are light on people who have been following the names proposal directly, so I feel a bit guilty about this. With luck some of the other ccNSO (in addition to Mary) and GNSO people will be there. > > My sincere apologies. > > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alan Barrett > Sent: 06 August 2015 10:17 > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation > >> On Wed, 05 Aug 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> The webinars are scheduled for: >> >> Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC >> Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC >> >> [...] If you are planning to join one or both webinars, please respond >> to this message to indicate: >> >> - which webinar (or both) >> - if you’re willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to >> you >> - if you’re willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe >> Connect chat room > > I intend to join the second webinar. I might also join the first webinar. When I am present, I am willing to answer questions. > > --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 Thu Aug 6 11:59:11 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:59:11 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Re: AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> References: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> Message-ID: <3ED27B60-7152-45C0-B4D2-073EA860F764@gmail.com> Yes and why not Why we should have fear to send it to OC concerned. Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Aug 2015, at 10:00, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > Apparently I have sent this response only to Alissa. Here it is again > for the record. > > Daniel > > - -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement > To: Alissa Cooper > From: Daniel Karrenberg > Message-ID: <55C17102.3040306 at ripe.net> > Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 04:12:18 +0200 > > I am fine with bringing this to the attention of the operational > communities. As a matter of principle we should make no assumptions > about who has already seen it and include CWG. > > However, if we forward this, we have to be careful to do it for any > other comment of an even roughly comparable nature. > > Daniel > >> On 3.08.15 16:59 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Coming back to this now that we are through the public comment >> launch — As far as I can tell there isn’t anything in this >> statement that is actionable for the ICG, but there is content >> that may be of interest to the CWG, CCWG, and RIR communities. I >> believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. >> Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists? >> >> Alissa >> >> On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Manal Ismail > > wrote: >> >>> Yes I agree .. very thorough and well-written .. I believe it >>> was shared on the CWG mailing list .. >>> >>> Kind Regards --Manal >>> >>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *joseph alhadeff *Sent:* Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:02 PM >>> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum >>> >>> >>> A fairly thoughtful and well written comment. I wonder whether >>> these issues were raised with the communities as part of their >>> process? >>> >>> On 7/14/2015 12:39 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: >>> >>> 14 July – “AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement - Our views on the Proposed >>> Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers ” for ICG >>> consideration” from Silvia Vivanco on behalf of Aziz Hilali. >>> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-July/000002. > html > 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVwxQEAAoJENDY5Emqa716/JEP/j3oZ/UeDPfAzrVwvWlFPzEl > tVd/J/in4ywOuaKsS58xUsAKXa1+wK6V+DzWKlz5LbMMKs+SbnrUb5+SnYoK2EvT > KVKXpt8+kQNS+9gYy975TIxgTJRIDbUfLyN9hJf84ljNK5MyAHKWirKn9MnSWje+ > VomFsrKIOyaUiTf6caEibl69Z4ldH72VRUeRRK3/H8Gp7WguAbDpM2DlemYIpyU4 > wS+rBrmgTNkhwBpUXbINIFfqDsxxdzdNSA7j0RGl953ntX7ubbxM65IA03afsDTg > ohsdheNMJd0fS/HvrJO0B+QT4rCAArARuc3sp1zqQ4evVpvdsNb8yfcwacojoqiM > RyQKafCTU81wFtVUacAXjLCAE8GZhc+/aeGIRwcPU1ecHB1gFb4vQz4PmyMJYnZ8 > EQWH1Cl1SZby/PydTJQFQml+fy0Taiv3/0rE1DqYWcLRtG6SgHyZm2VMjDOxE1h/ > h99QrDGvEM34OrEo0+YZx1vv68HE+qTvgERzRppD9devap62NdtoQaSin6d+Nvfb > bcb9jNPjjDxcp1/iwRzWpO50bgfTqnfxXdyZbLC0H/XLUqmIs6qJofQmHuDQeO+D > tDnmWBV1J1pslFizAOPiwUcNX3zLRR9APY1eCn7D/yiWpPQizl9ch7pJSgZFuiSa > VHqnQXbcSTEGv7DomeTp > =oRWr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Aug 6 16:24:07 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I plan to attend the one on the 7th, which will be early in the morning here. I have an open house at my son's new school from 14:00 to about 16:00 here, so I think I will have to miss the one today. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 4:08 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation > > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version > attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes > reserved for Q&A. We'd like to be able to pitch some of the questions we > receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We'd also like to have a > couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and > respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation > convention ("") for participants to use when writing a question > into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we > expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG > member responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are > planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to > indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you're willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > - if you're willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect > chat room > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Aug 6 16:45:34 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Re: AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> References: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > However, if we forward this, we have to be careful to do it for any other > comment of an even roughly comparable nature. This has been my concern all along, and it is why I oppose forwarding it. There is nothing particularly special about this comment, so I am not sure why we have been discussing it so long. By forwarding it even though it has nothing actionable for ICG we seem to be endorsing it or highlighting it in a way that I consider inappropriate. From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Aug 6 16:49:13 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 12:49:13 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Re: AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: References: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> Message-ID: <55C39009.80800@oracle.com> Unfortunately by not forwarding we are making some substantive judgements that can only be made by the operational communities. Perhaps the best course is to forward it for information purposes with a statement that we found no action for ICG to take upon it. This way it cannot be seen to be an endorsement. On 8/6/2015 12:45 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> However, if we forward this, we have to be careful to do it for any other >> comment of an even roughly comparable nature. > This has been my concern all along, and it is why I oppose forwarding it. There is nothing particularly special about this comment, so I am not sure why we have been discussing it so long. By forwarding it even though it has nothing actionable for ICG we seem to be endorsing it or highlighting it in a way that I consider inappropriate. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Aug 6 17:09:00 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:09:00 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <55C39009.80800@oracle.com> References: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> <55C39009.80800@oracle.com> Message-ID: <7537CB57-AE20-49D8-B4D4-D9848F9E2400@LStAmour.org> Alissa said: "I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists?" I would support Joe's approach below, or alternatively, we could either ask the originators to send to the CCWG and CRISP lists directly, or one of the appropriately engaged ICG members for the CCWG and CRISP efforts could simply forward it to those communities reducing the risk of setting a precedence. Best, Lynn On Aug 6, 2015, at 12:49 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > Unfortunately by not forwarding we are making some substantive judgements that can only be made by the operational communities. Perhaps the best course is to forward it for information purposes with a statement that we found no action for ICG to take upon it. This way it cannot be seen to be an endorsement. > > On 8/6/2015 12:45 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> However, if we forward this, we have to be careful to do it for any other >>> comment of an even roughly comparable nature. >> This has been my concern all along, and it is why I oppose forwarding it. There is nothing particularly special about this comment, so I am not sure why we have been discussing it so long. By forwarding it even though it has nothing actionable for ICG we seem to be endorsing it or highlighting it in a way that I consider inappropriate. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 apb at cequrux.com Thu Aug 6 17:37:36 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 21:37:36 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <7537CB57-AE20-49D8-B4D4-D9848F9E2400@LStAmour.org> References: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> <55C39009.80800@oracle.com> <7537CB57-AE20-49D8-B4D4-D9848F9E2400@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <20150806173735.GB27276@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Thu, 06 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >Alissa said: "I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists?" > >I would support Joe's approach below, or alternatively, we could either ask the originators to send to the CCWG and CRISP lists directly, or one of the appropriately engaged ICG members for the CCWG and CRISP efforts could simply forward it to those communities reducing the risk of setting a precedence. I have forwarded a link the statement, to the numbers community's ianaxfer at nro.net mailing list. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Aug 6 17:38:23 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:38:23 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] New social media posts from ICG Message-ID: <014b01d0d06e$b29084e0$17b18ea0$@icgsec.asia> Hi All, Here are the new social media posts from the ICG regarding webinar 1 which is starting soon: Tweet: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/629344346194747396 FB post: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1686225858272713 Thank you all for retweeting and broadcasting to your communities! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 18:23:17 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:23:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jennifer, I also will attend the one on 07 AUGUST AND NOT THAT ON 06 AUGUST Kavouss 2015-08-06 18:24 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L < milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>: > I plan to attend the one on the 7th, which will be early in the morning > here. > I have an open house at my son's new school from 14:00 to about 16:00 > here, so I think I will have to miss the one today. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > > Alissa Cooper > > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 4:08 PM > > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > > Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation > > > > The webinars are scheduled for: > > > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version > > attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 > minutes > > reserved for Q&A. We'd like to be able to pitch some of the questions we > > receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We'd also like to > have a > > couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and > > respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation > > convention ("") for participants to use when writing a question > > into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we > > expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit > from ICG > > member responses/engagement. > > > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are > > planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to > > indicate: > > > > - which webinar (or both) > > - if you're willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > > - if you're willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect > > chat room > > > > 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 Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 6 18:26:49 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:26:49 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be concerned by this lack of identification? Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field will be deemed to be filing personal comments? I'm ok with people indicating: * Individual * Organisation nnn, but personal input * Organisation input I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively discount such input - perhaps unfairly. But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly this evening. Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glaser at cgi.br Thu Aug 6 18:32:25 2015 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:32:25 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55C3A839.5010409@cgi.br> Hi, I will attend the webinar scheduled for August 06. best Hartmut ======================================================================= > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 4:08 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > > Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation > > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version > attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes > reserved for Q&A. We'd like to be able to pitch some of the questions we > receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We'd also like to have a > couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and > respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation > convention ("") for participants to use when writing a question > into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we > expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG > member responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are > planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to > indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you're willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > - if you're willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect > chat room > > 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 daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Aug 6 18:33:42 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:33:42 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your comment will be treated as coming from the organisation." Anything else is too much open for interpretation. Daniel On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: > I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have completed > the “organisation” field. Am I the only one to be concerned by this > lack of identification? > > > > Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be > completed as “individual” as the first submission has done.) Or should > we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field will be > deemed to be filing personal comments? > > > > I’m ok with people indicating: > > · Individual > > · Organisation nnn, but personal input > > · Organisation input > > > > I am particularly concerned by an input from “community representative” > which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively > discount such input – perhaps unfairly. > > > > But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly this > evening. > > > > Martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 6 18:40:55 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:40:55 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: <55C3A839.5010409@cgi.br> References: , <55C3A839.5010409@cgi.br> Message-ID: I will join the August 6 webinar. Keith Drazek On Aug 6, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser > wrote: Hi, I will attend the webinar scheduled for August 06. best Hartmut ======================================================================= > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 4:08 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > > Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation > > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version > attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes > reserved for Q&A. We'd like to be able to pitch some of the questions we > receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We'd also like to have a > couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and > respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation > convention ("") for participants to use when writing a question > into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we > expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG > member responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are > planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to > indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you're willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > - if you're willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect > chat room > > 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 manal at tra.gov.eg Thu Aug 6 18:55:00 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:55:00 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation In-Reply-To: <55C3A839.5010409@cgi.br> References: <55C3A839.5010409@cgi.br> Message-ID: <9ecc2d75683847479c0be6acf2a7252e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> I will join Aug 6th, and will do my best to join Aug 7th .. Apologies for the late confirmation .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut Richard Glaser Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 8:32 PM To: IANA Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation Hi, I will attend the webinar scheduled for August 06. best Hartmut ======================================================================= > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 4:08 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > > Subject: [Internal-cg] Webinar participation > > The webinars are scheduled for: > > Aug 6 - 19:00-20:30 UTC > Aug 7 - 11:00-12:30 UTC > > Mohamed, Patrik and I will be presenting the slide deck (final version > attached) in the first 45 minutes of each webinar. Then we have 45 minutes > reserved for Q&A. We'd like to be able to pitch some of the questions we > receive to ICG members in attendance as appropriate. We'd also like to have a > couple of volunteers to monitor the chat window in Adobe Connect and > respond to questions and comments via chat. We will have a notation > convention ("") for participants to use when writing a question > into the chat that they want to have read and responded to aloud, but we > expect there to be other chatter in the chat room that could benefit from ICG > member responses/engagement. > > Jean-Jacques has already volunteered to monitor the chat room. If you are > planning to join one or both webinars, please respond to this message to > indicate: > > - which webinar (or both) > - if you're willing to answer questions aloud that we chairs pitch to you > - if you're willing to respond to questions/comments in the Adobe Connect > chat room > > 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 jjs at dyalog.net Thu Aug 6 18:55:48 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:55:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> Message-ID: <6536905.1884.1438887346652.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Daniel +1. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 6 Août 2015 20:33:42 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your comment will be treated as coming from the organisation." Anything else is too much open for interpretation. Daniel On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: > I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have completed > the “organisation” field. Am I the only one to be concerned by this > lack of identification? > > > > Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be > completed as “individual” as the first submission has done.) Or should > we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field will be > deemed to be filing personal comments? > > > > I’m ok with people indicating: > > · Individual > > · Organisation nnn, but personal input > > · Organisation input > > > > I am particularly concerned by an input from “community representative” > which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively > discount such input – perhaps unfairly. > > > > But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly this > evening. > > > > 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 From mundy at tislabs.com Thu Aug 6 19:27:18 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:27:18 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <7537CB57-AE20-49D8-B4D4-D9848F9E2400@LStAmour.org> References: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> <55C39009.80800@oracle.com> <7537CB57-AE20-49D8-B4D4-D9848F9E2400@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <248E8653-A7FD-48D6-8F77-92BEABB4B928@tislabs.com> I also support Joe’s approach. Russ M On Aug 6, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Alissa said: "I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists?" > > I would support Joe's approach below, or alternatively, we could either ask the originators to send to the CCWG and CRISP lists directly, or one of the appropriately engaged ICG members for the CCWG and CRISP efforts could simply forward it to those communities reducing the risk of setting a precedence. > > Best, > Lynn > > > On Aug 6, 2015, at 12:49 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > >> Unfortunately by not forwarding we are making some substantive judgements that can only be made by the operational communities. Perhaps the best course is to forward it for information purposes with a statement that we found no action for ICG to take upon it. This way it cannot be seen to be an endorsement. >> >> On 8/6/2015 12:45 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> However, if we forward this, we have to be careful to do it for any other >>>> comment of an even roughly comparable nature. >>> This has been my concern all along, and it is why I oppose forwarding it. There is nothing particularly special about this comment, so I am not sure why we have been discussing it so long. By forwarding it even though it has nothing actionable for ICG we seem to be endorsing it or highlighting it in a way that I consider inappropriate. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Thu Aug 6 21:49:07 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:49:07 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Chat Transcript for ICG webinar 1 Message-ID: <029c01d0d091$b9285d50$2b7917f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG webinar 1. When the recordings are available, they will be circulated and also will be posted on the ICG web site here: http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Webinar 1 Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 310681 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Aug 6 22:46:26 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:46:26 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] AFRALO-AFRICANN Statement In-Reply-To: <248E8653-A7FD-48D6-8F77-92BEABB4B928@tislabs.com> References: <55C17102.3040306@ripe.net> <55C31404.7080106@ripe.net> <55C39009.80800@oracle.com> <7537CB57-AE20-49D8-B4D4-D9848F9E2400@LStAmour.org> <248E8653-A7FD-48D6-8F77-92BEABB4B928@tislabs.com> Message-ID: <0FF2F73B-BBEE-4470-9629-47FA01F18367@cooperw.in> Thanks all, I forwarded this on to the CCWG as an FYI. Alissa On Aug 6, 2015, at 12:27 PM, Russ Mundy wrote: > I also support Joe’s approach. Russ M > > On Aug 6, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >> Alissa said: "I believe the statement has already been sent directly to the CWG. Should we forward it to the CCWG and the CRISP mailing lists?" >> >> I would support Joe's approach below, or alternatively, we could either ask the originators to send to the CCWG and CRISP lists directly, or one of the appropriately engaged ICG members for the CCWG and CRISP efforts could simply forward it to those communities reducing the risk of setting a precedence. >> >> Best, >> Lynn >> >> >> On Aug 6, 2015, at 12:49 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately by not forwarding we are making some substantive judgements that can only be made by the operational communities. Perhaps the best course is to forward it for information purposes with a statement that we found no action for ICG to take upon it. This way it cannot be seen to be an endorsement. >>> >>> On 8/6/2015 12:45 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> However, if we forward this, we have to be careful to do it for any other >>>>> comment of an even roughly comparable nature. >>>> This has been my concern all along, and it is why I oppose forwarding it. There is nothing particularly special about this comment, so I am not sure why we have been discussing it so long. By forwarding it even though it has nothing actionable for ICG we seem to be endorsing it or highlighting it in a way that I consider inappropriate. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Aug 6 22:48:21 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:48:21 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> Message-ID: <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as > coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your comment > will be treated as coming from the organization." Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? Alissa > > Anything else is too much open for interpretation. > > Daniel > > On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have completed >> the “organisation” field. Am I the only one to be concerned by this >> lack of identification? >> >> >> >> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >> completed as “individual” as the first submission has done.) Or should >> we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field will be >> deemed to be filing personal comments? >> >> >> >> I’m ok with people indicating: >> >> · Individual >> >> · Organisation nnn, but personal input >> >> · Organisation input >> >> >> >> I am particularly concerned by an input from “community representative” >> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >> discount such input – perhaps unfairly. >> >> >> >> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly this >> evening. >> >> >> >> 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 From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Aug 7 03:03:13 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:03:13 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG webinar 1: Audio recordings and Adobe Connect recording Message-ID: <035201d0d0bd$9a3eaee0$cebc0ca0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The audio recordings and the Adobe Connect recording for ICG webinar 1 is now available on the ICG archives here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2015 5:49 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Chat Transcript for ICG webinar 1 Dear All, Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG webinar 1. When the recordings are available, they will be circulated and also will be posted on the ICG web site here: http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Aug 7 06:11:59 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:11:59 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> Message-ID: <24B2BA76-27E1-410E-9843-66334DCC4A3E@apnic.net> +1 On 7 Aug 2015, at 4:33, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as > coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your comment > will be treated as coming from the organisation." > > Anything else is too much open for interpretation. > > Daniel From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Fri Aug 7 08:29:59 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:29:59 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as > coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your > comment will be treated as coming from the organization." Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? Alissa > > Anything else is too much open for interpretation. > > Daniel > > On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >> concerned by this lack of identification? >> >> >> >> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >> >> >> >> I'm ok with people indicating: >> >> * Individual >> >> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >> >> * Organisation input >> >> >> >> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >> >> >> >> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >> this evening. >> >> >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Aug 7 10:00:02 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 06:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum Message-ID: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: 7 August - "Comment on handling of my previous comment on the CWG-Stewardship proposal" from Richard Hill. http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-August/000003.html Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Aug 7 10:25:32 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 06:25:32 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] New social media posts from ICG - webinar 2 Message-ID: <004c01d0d0fb$6520c700$2f625500$@icgsec.asia> Hi All, Here are the new social media posts from the ICG regarding webinar 2, starting in about 30 minutes: Tweet: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/629595152919736320 FB post: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1686437514918214 Thank you all for retweeting and broadcasting to your communities! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Aug 7 12:43:17 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:43:17 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum In-Reply-To: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> References: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <55C4A7E5.90404@oracle.com> Jennifer: Apologies if this is already possible, but can folks who have posed questions that were answered follow up in any way if they thought we misinterpreted the question or didn't fully answer it? Also is anyone on ICG aware of whether ICANN has ever done a clarifying document between jurisdiction over corporate functions and that over subject matter decisions and which impacts the IANA transition? If so we should cross reference that to address Jean Jacques concerns about the ability to understand the issue; I think it may less be US vs International residence and more legal vs. non-legal background or how long have you dealt with this specific issue over the last few years... Joe On 8/7/2015 6:00 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear All, > > The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: > > 7 August – “Comment on handling of my previous comment on the > CWG-Stewardship proposal” from Richard Hill. > > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-August/000003.html > > > 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 Fri Aug 7 13:18:08 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:18:08 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum In-Reply-To: <55C4A7E5.90404@oracle.com> References: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> <55C4A7E5.90404@oracle.com> Message-ID: <00b501d0d113$81d18480$85748d80$@icgsec.asia> Hi Joe, Webinar and general questions - people can send questions to the ICG using question-icg at ianacg.org - these are publicly archived here: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/question-icg_ianacg.org/. ICG Forum - people can post community feedback using icg-forum at ianacg.org - this is publicly archived here: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 8:43 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum Jennifer: Apologies if this is already possible, but can folks who have posed questions that were answered follow up in any way if they thought we misinterpreted the question or didn't fully answer it? Also is anyone on ICG aware of whether ICANN has ever done a clarifying document between jurisdiction over corporate functions and that over subject matter decisions and which impacts the IANA transition? If so we should cross reference that to address Jean Jacques concerns about the ability to understand the issue; I think it may less be US vs International residence and more legal vs. non-legal background or how long have you dealt with this specific issue over the last few years... Joe On 8/7/2015 6:00 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: Dear All, The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: 7 August - "Comment on handling of my previous comment on the CWG-Stewardship proposal" from Richard Hill. http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-August/000003.html 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 alissa at cooperw.in Fri Aug 7 16:04:16 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:04:16 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Aug 12 call cancelled Message-ID: <55DE788B-AE40-4EA5-B9D3-FB0EF4DF7829@cooperw.in> We are canceling the Aug 12 ICG call. We have a few pending discussions ongoing on the mailing list but they do not seem to be in need of conference call time. We’ll resume with our next call on August 26. Alissa From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Aug 7 16:31:59 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:31:59 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG webinar 2: Chat transcript, adobe connect recording Message-ID: <017401d0d12e$967d9de0$c378d9a0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the ICG webinar 2 chat transcript linked and attached. You may also find the Adobe Connect recording link on the archive as well. Archive link: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ When the language audio recordings have been converted, they will also be posted to the archives at the link above. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Webinar_2_Chat_transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 311133 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Aug 7 16:36:15 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:36:15 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill References: <015301d0d0f3$c5becab0$513c6010$@difo.dk> Message-ID: <451C6E39-E7E3-4228-B436-2B0F7818415C@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: "Lise Fuhr" > Subject: SV: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > Date: August 7, 2015 at 2:31:00 AM PDT > To: "'Alissa Cooper'" , > Cc: > > Hi Alissa, > > The CWG-Stewardship co-chairs thank the ICG for forwarding the comments from Richard Hill regarding the CWG-Stewardship proposal for the transition of the IANA services and also for the ICG’s thoughtful evaluation of his comments. We provide below selected quotes of his comments followed by our responses in bulleted format and italic font. > > We would also like to point out that the CWG-Stewardship did a comprehensive review of all submissions received in the Public Comment periods including those from Mr. Hill. To facilitate the ability to see our responses to Mr. Hill’s comments we have attached an excerpt of our Public Comment Tool that contains just his comments along with the CWG-Stewardship responses. > > Referring to the CWG-Stewardship Response to the ICG RFP, Mr. Hill stated “. . . it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public comment, and that at least some of the 115 input comments made on the draft proposal were not accommodated in the Final Proposal. That is, all the comments were considered, but at least some of them were rejected.” > · It is true that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public comment using the normal public comment process. However, the CWG-Stewardship would like to point out that it is not common practice in an ICANN context to publish a final proposal for Public Comment, unless substantive changes are made to the draft proposal. Furthermore, the Public Comment forum clearly indicated that it was the intention to finalize the proposal for submission to the chartering organizations following the review of the Public Comment submissions. The CWG-Stewardship would like to point out that an additional opportunity for public comment is provided by the ICG, which is similar to the opportunity for Public Comment that is typically provided in the context of policy recommendations following the approval of a chartering organization, but prior to consideration by the ICANN Board. Furthermore, the CWG-Stewardship notes that: > o In order to take advantage of the in-person meetings at ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires for SO and AC consideration of the proposal and to provide sufficient advance time for review of the proposal prior to ICANN 53, it was necessary to send the proposal to the SOs and ACs as well as publish it for full community review in early June. > o A Public Comment period on a largely complete proposal ended on 20 May after which comments were reviewed and edits made to produce the final version that was delivered to the SOs and ACs for their action. > o Each of the SOs and ACs provided opportunities for their constituents to provide comments and contribute to their approval decision; most SOs and ACs allow for input from those who are not formally associated with their groups; and opportunities were provided at ICANN 53 for input in-person or remotely from any interested parties. > · It is also true that not all comments were accommodated in the Final Proposal, but the CWG-Stewardship would like to point out that there is no obligation to simply accept all comments received, but instead there is an expectation that a thorough analysis of the comments is carried out and it is demonstrated of how the comments were considered and whether or not any changes were made as a result of the comments received which the CWG-Stewardship did in the Public Comment Review Tool (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-11jun15-en.pdf). Furthermore: > o It should be noted that it was impossible to accommodate all comments because some of them supported competing views. > o Secondly, in a global community as diverse as the Internet community, it is necessary to develop compromises that can accommodate as many viewpoints as possible given the present timeframe and in reality even if we have had more time it may not be possible to accommodate everyone’s viewpoints. > o The CWG-Stewardship proposal says: “In developing its Transition Proposal, work plan and any other reports, the CWG-Stewardship shall seek to act by consensus.” It goes on to define consensus as “a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree”. We firmly believe that the CWG-Stewardship succeeded in achieving this definition of consensus. > > “In particular, as detailed below, many of my comments were dismissed.” > · Please note that this was true of submissions by many commenters; that is a fact of consensus processes in a diverse community. > > “Thus, while the Final Proposal represents the consensus of the CWG-Stewardship itself, it does not necessarily represent the consensus of the global multi-stakeholder community. Indeed, as I have pointed out previously, CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community.” > · The CWG-Stewardship was not in any way restricted to ICANN participants; it was open to all members of the global multi-stakeholder community and efforts were made to reach out to those outside of ICANN. > > “Further, the proposal is conditional on changes in ICANN's accountability, which have not yet been approved. Thus it would be premature to approve the proposal.” > · If the ICANN accountability conditions are not met, the approval will be reconsidered. > · Waiting to submit the CWG-Stewardship proposal until after the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 recommendations were finalized, approved and implemented would have caused excessive delays in the IANA Stewardship Transition; by submitting a conditional proposal, we allowed the ICG to do its due diligence now, which we believe will save considerable time later on. > · We note here that there have been regular communications between the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability Chairs, and also that the CCWG-Accountability group has, in their reply to the Public Comment periods on the CWG-Stewardship proposal, stated that the requirements are non-controversial to the CCWG-Accountability. Therefore the CWG-Stewardship submission of the proposal with the conditions was a reasonable thing to do. > > “Regarding the substance of the proposal, it can be characterized as "much ado about nothing": it uses many pages of very detailed text to enshrine the status quo, apart from accountability changes mentioned in paragraph 106. PTI will be fully controlled by ICANN, so there is no meaningful separation and no real change with respect to the current situation. In particular, there will be no change in jurisdiction, so PTI will be subject to US law, as is the case today for the IANA function. This means that, in effect, the United States maintains its asymmetric role with respect to the management of domain names and addresses (PTI would have to obey US court orders and US laws), thus negating the objective of internationalizing the management of Internet domain names and addresses.” > · We respectfully disagree that there is no meaningful change; we believe that the legal separation of PTI will greatly facilitate complete separation at a later point in time if it is ever needed and that the possibility of such separation will serve to incent ICANN and PTI behavior that is responsive to community needs and the public interest. > · The CWG-Stewardship decided fairly early in its process that any jurisdiction issues would be better handled by the CCWG-Accountability; there were at least two key reasons for this: > o Jurisdictional issues would require significantly more time and hence would cause much longer delays in implementing the transition. > o We believed that the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal would be more likely to be supported by the U.S. Government in a timely manner if jurisdiction was not changed at the outset. > > “Thus, in my view, that Final Proposal does not represent the consensus of the global multi-stakeholder community.” > · Mr. Hill’s conclusion is only correct if ‘consensus’ is defined as ‘full consensus’ as defined in the charter: “a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection”. That would mean unanimous support. > · The CWG-Stewardship never claimed unanimous support. > · We again want to make reference to the definition of consensus in the CWG-Stewardship Charter: “a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree”; it is our assessment that this objective has been achieved. > > Attachment > > Attached is an excerpt of the CWG-Stewardship Public Comment Review Tool, containing just Richard Hill’s comments along with the CWG-Stewardship responses. > > Best regards, > Jonathan & Lise > > > Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Alissa Cooper > Sendt: 5. august 2015 19:57 > Til: jrobinson at afilias.info > Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > Hi Jonathan, > > Regarding Richard's claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a “final” document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate. Furthermore, there is a public comment period on the combined proposal of the three operational communities. If the final CWG proposal deviated substantially from what the global multistakeholder community wants, that fact should be revealed. > > Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG’s charter is that the group is open to any interested participant. The process was based in ICANN through the chartering organisations and that is hardly surprising given the role of ICANN (and indeed the invitation from NTIA). However, the process was open to anyone, and was based around developing consensus – no votes and no sustained opposition on compromises that allowed the CWG to move forward. > > Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.” We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard’s). It is our understanding that all of the comments were discussed and that some of them, including the comments about jurisdiction, were identified as items that could be addressed in future work. > > Best, > Alissa on behalf of the ICG > > On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:54 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > > > Alissa, > > Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. > > Jonathan > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > CWG, > > The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. > > The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Excerpt - Public Comment Review Tool_Richard Hill.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 56324 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Aug 7 16:44:19 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:44:19 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? Alissa Begin forwarded message: > From: Alissa Cooper > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson > > Hi Olivier, > > The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> Dear Jonathan and Alissa, >> >> I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? >> Kindest regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >>> Alissa, >>> >>> Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>> Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 >>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA >>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >>> >>> CWG, >>> >>> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. >>> >>> The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Aug 7 17:52:44 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:52:44 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Yes, I think that makes sense. A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson > Hi Olivier, The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. Thanks, Alissa On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: Dear Jonathan and Alissa, I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? Kindest regards, Olivier On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Alissa, Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Aug 7 17:58:11 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:58:11 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <0B26ABF0-CCD3-4BDF-B954-D45DB2720308@frobbit.se> On 7 Aug 2015, at 19:52, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Yes, I think that makes sense. > A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way +1 Patrik > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? > > Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? > > Alissa > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Alissa Cooper > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson > > > Hi Olivier, > > The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: > > > Dear Jonathan and Alissa, > > I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > Alissa, > > Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. > > Jonathan > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > CWG, > The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. > > The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Aug 7 19:27:00 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:27:00 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Message-ID: The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Questions from ICG Webinar 1 and 2.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 74249 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Fri Aug 7 20:07:26 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:07:26 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Yes, I think that makes sense. > A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way +1 - makes sense to me to have a single comment “channel” active at a time. Russ M > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? > > Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? > > Alissa > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Alissa Cooper > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson > > Hi Olivier, > > The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > Dear Jonathan and Alissa, > > I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > Alissa, > > Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. > > Jonathan > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > CWG, > > The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. > > The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mnuduma at yahoo.com Sat Aug 8 07:00:52 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:00:52 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <20150808070052.5267538.63086.23085@yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Aug 8 13:52:00 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:52:00 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Suspend_ICG_forum_during_public_comment_p?= =?utf-8?q?eriod=3F?= Message-ID: <20150808134734.DF1DB1C1562@smtp.notifymdm.com> +1 With a redirect to the correct channel... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary Uduma [mnuduma at yahoo.com] Received: Saturday, 08 Aug 2015, 12:01AM To: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; Mueller, Milton L [milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; IANA etc etc Coordination Group [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 Mary Uduma Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Russ MundySent: Friday, 7 August 2015 21:08To: Mueller, Milton LCc: Russ Mundy; IANA etc etc Coordination GroupSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Yes, I think that makes sense. A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way +1 - makes sense to me to have a single comment “channel” active at a time. Russ M From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson Hi Olivier, The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. Thanks, Alissa On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Dear Jonathan and Alissa, I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? Kindest regards, Olivier On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Alissa, Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ 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 Lynn at LStAmour.org Sat Aug 8 14:50:53 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 10:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> Hi Alissa, I think there were a small number of questions that we should think about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this weekend at a wedding). Best, Lynn On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). > > Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Aug 8 23:18:51 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 23:18:51 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Thanks .. very useful .. I still have to go through them but I agree with Lynn, there were only a few .. In principle, I think we should add only questions about the overall proposal (compatibility/workability) or about the ICG findings and/or role .. I recall many questions about details of the individual proposals and don't think we should add those (maybe share them with chairs of the relevant OCs or WGs?) Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:51 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Hi Alissa, I think there were a small number of questions that we should think about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this weekend at a wedding). Best, Lynn On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). > > Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? > > 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 From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Aug 8 23:22:59 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 23:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: <20150808134734.DF1DB1C1562@smtp.notifymdm.com> References: <20150808134734.DF1DB1C1562@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: <3693d09e2edf452c885e0b734a8b36b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> +1 .. makes sense and it's good to redirect to the correct channel .. I think we also need to announce this on the ICG website? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 3:52 PM To: mundy at tislabs.com; milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu; mnuduma at yahoo.com Cc: mundy at tislabs.com; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 With a redirect to the correct channel... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary Uduma [mnuduma at yahoo.com] Received: Saturday, 08 Aug 2015, 12:01AM To: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; Mueller, Milton L [milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; IANA etc etc Coordination Group [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 Mary Uduma Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Russ MundySent: Friday, 7 August 2015 21:08To: Mueller, Milton LCc: Russ Mundy; IANA etc etc Coordination GroupSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Yes, I think that makes sense. A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way +1 - makes sense to me to have a single comment “channel” active at a time. Russ M From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson Hi Olivier, The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. Thanks, Alissa On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Dear Jonathan and Alissa, I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? Kindest regards, Olivier On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Alissa, Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ 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 From jjs at dyalog.net Mon Aug 10 08:14:06 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:14:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: <3693d09e2edf452c885e0b734a8b36b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <10968071.437.1439194441850.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> +1 to all previous comments on this thread. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Joseph Alhadeff" , mundy at tislabs.com, "milton mueller" , mnuduma at yahoo.com Cc: mundy at tislabs.com, internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Dimanche 9 Août 2015 01:22:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 .. makes sense and it's good to redirect to the correct channel .. I think we also need to announce this on the ICG website? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 3:52 PM To: mundy at tislabs.com; milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu; mnuduma at yahoo.com Cc: mundy at tislabs.com; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 With a redirect to the correct channel... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary Uduma [mnuduma at yahoo.com] Received: Saturday, 08 Aug 2015, 12:01AM To: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; Mueller, Milton L [milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; IANA etc etc Coordination Group [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 Mary Uduma Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Russ MundySent: Friday, 7 August 2015 21:08To: Mueller, Milton LCc: Russ Mundy; IANA etc etc Coordination GroupSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Yes, I think that makes sense. A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way +1 - makes sense to me to have a single comment “channel” active at a time. Russ M From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson Hi Olivier, The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. Thanks, Alissa On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Dear Jonathan and Alissa, I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? Kindest regards, Olivier On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Alissa, Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ 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 From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Mon Aug 10 09:13:43 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:13:43 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: <10968071.437.1439194441850.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <3693d09e2edf452c885e0b734a8b36b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <10968071.437.1439194441850.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AEFE7C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I'm pretty neutral on this. Our forum is hardly heavily used and out of curiosity I tried to find it on our site - it is under the contact tab to post and, although the archive is indexed from the front page (Community Feedback Forum / Live Forum Archives), there isn't an obvious, "tell us what you think" link. It is hardly a discussion forum and, as has been remarked, is hardly used. I could argue that there is a need for a channel for non-proposal related topics, but these appear to be non-existent, so why would we see a sudden demand? Anyone confused could end up posting in the wrong place, but as noted above they'd need to try really hard to do this. So disabling the forum hardly seems to be an issue, although a mail-responder might be more transparent. So if people really feel that it is an issue, I'll go either way. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: 10 August 2015 09:14 To: Manal Ismail Cc: mundy at tislabs.com; mnuduma at yahoo.com; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 to all previous comments on this thread. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Joseph Alhadeff" , mundy at tislabs.com, "milton mueller" , mnuduma at yahoo.com Cc: mundy at tislabs.com, internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Dimanche 9 Août 2015 01:22:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 .. makes sense and it's good to redirect to the correct channel .. I think we also need to announce this on the ICG website? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 3:52 PM To: mundy at tislabs.com; milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu; mnuduma at yahoo.com Cc: mundy at tislabs.com; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 With a redirect to the correct channel... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary Uduma [mnuduma at yahoo.com] Received: Saturday, 08 Aug 2015, 12:01AM To: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; Mueller, Milton L [milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; IANA etc etc Coordination Group [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? +1 Mary Uduma Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Russ MundySent: Friday, 7 August 2015 21:08To: Mueller, Milton LCc: Russ Mundy; IANA etc etc Coordination GroupSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Yes, I think that makes sense. A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way +1 - makes sense to me to have a single comment “channel” active at a time. Russ M From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson Hi Olivier, The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. Thanks, Alissa On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Dear Jonathan and Alissa, I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? Kindest regards, Olivier On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Alissa, Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 10 10:10:15 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:10:15 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: <3693d09e2edf452c885e0b734a8b36b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <20150808134734.DF1DB1C1562@smtp.notifymdm.com> <3693d09e2edf452c885e0b734a8b36b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <41510D11-29C9-4DD4-A113-780B6EDF0F10@gmail.com> These exchange of messages are time consuming and totally counterproductive. I request colleagues to be more effective Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Aug 2015, at 01:22, Manal Ismail wrote: > > +1 .. makes sense and it's good to redirect to the correct channel .. > I think we also need to announce this on the ICG website? > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 3:52 PM > To: mundy at tislabs.com; milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu; mnuduma at yahoo.com > Cc: mundy at tislabs.com; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? > > +1 With a redirect to the correct channel... > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mary Uduma [mnuduma at yahoo.com] > Received: Saturday, 08 Aug 2015, 12:01AM > To: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; Mueller, Milton L [milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu] > CC: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; IANA etc etc Coordination Group [internal-cg at ianacg.org] > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? > > +1 > > Mary Uduma > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. > From: Russ MundySent: Friday, 7 August 2015 21:08To: Mueller, Milton LCc: Russ Mundy; IANA etc etc Coordination GroupSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Yes, I think that makes sense. > > A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way > > +1 - makes sense to me to have a single comment “channel” active at a time. Russ M > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? > > > > Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? > > > > Alissa > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Alissa Cooper > > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT > > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi Olivier, > > > > The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > Dear Jonathan and Alissa, > > I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > > Alissa, > > > > Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. > > > > Jonathan > > > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill > > > > CWG, > > The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. > > > > The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > _______________________________________________CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Aug 10 10:14:30 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:14:30 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: <0B26ABF0-CCD3-4BDF-B954-D45DB2720308@frobbit.se> References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> <0B26ABF0-CCD3-4BDF-B954-D45DB2720308@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <84FF8792-2D82-4FEF-AFAB-D1C517E19610@gmail.com> Patrik What is the agenda of 12 August Why we need that meeting Pls send the agenda Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 7 Aug 2015, at 19:58, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> On 7 Aug 2015, at 19:52, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Yes, I think that makes sense. >> A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way > > +1 > > Patrik > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM >> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? >> >> Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? >> >> Alissa >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> From: Alissa Cooper > >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >> Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT >> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > >> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson > >> >> Hi Olivier, >> >> The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: >> >> >> Dear Jonathan and Alissa, >> >> I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? >> Kindest regards, >> >> Olivier >> On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >> Alissa, >> >> Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. >> >> Jonathan >> >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >> Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 >> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >> >> CWG, >> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. >> >> The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From paf at frobbit.se Mon Aug 10 10:34:34 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:34:34 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: <84FF8792-2D82-4FEF-AFAB-D1C517E19610@gmail.com> References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> <0B26ABF0-CCD3-4BDF-B954-D45DB2720308@frobbit.se> <84FF8792-2D82-4FEF-AFAB-D1C517E19610@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Kavouss, According to mail from Alissa, the call on the 12th is cancelled. Patrik On 10 Aug 2015, at 12:14, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Patrik > What is the agenda of 12 August > Why we need that meeting > Pls send the agenda > Regards > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 7 Aug 2015, at 19:58, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> >>> On 7 Aug 2015, at 19:52, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I think that makes sense. >>> A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way >> >> +1 >> >> Patrik >> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM >>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? >>> >>> Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> From: Alissa Cooper > >>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >>> Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT >>> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > >>> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson > >>> >>> Hi Olivier, >>> >>> The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Jonathan and Alissa, >>> >>> I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? >>> Kindest regards, >>> >>> Olivier >>> On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >>> Alissa, >>> >>> Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>> Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 >>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA >>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >>> >>> CWG, >>> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. >>> >>> The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> >>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -------------- 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 Aug 10 11:42:39 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:42:39 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> <0B26ABF0-CCD3-4BDF-B954-D45DB2720308@frobbit.se> <84FF8792-2D82-4FEF-AFAB-D1C517E19610@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02DD484D-8F58-4236-8074-39C65DFBF801@gmail.com> Dear Patrik I an happy to hear that since there was no issue to discuss Regards Ka Sent from my iPhone > On 10 Aug 2015, at 12:34, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > Dear Kavouss, > > According to mail from Alissa, the call on the 12th is cancelled. > > Patrik > >> On 10 Aug 2015, at 12:14, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Patrik >> What is the agenda of 12 August >> Why we need that meeting >> Pls send the agenda >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On 7 Aug 2015, at 19:58, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>> >>>> On 7 Aug 2015, at 19:52, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I think that makes sense. >>>> A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM >>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? >>>> >>>> Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Alissa Cooper > >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >>>> Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT >>>> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > >>>> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson > >>>> >>>> Hi Olivier, >>>> >>>> The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Jonathan and Alissa, >>>> >>>> I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? >>>> Kindest regards, >>>> >>>> Olivier >>>> On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >>>> Alissa, >>>> >>>> Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>>> Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 >>>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA >>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >>>> >>>> CWG, >>>> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. >>>> >>>> The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> >>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >>>> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Mon Aug 10 13:10:53 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:10:53 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC In-Reply-To: <01da01d0ce22$7a1daf00$6e590d00$@icgsec.asia> References: <01da01d0ce22$7a1daf00$6e590d00$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AF0902@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Hi Jennifer, In the wrap-up session face-to-face, I'd suggest that my flippant comment "(with analogies to 'War and Peace' and 'Ulysses')" could be deleted on page 5 ("Discussion re 'alternatives'" bullet 3). My point was that we should avoid producing lots more text (and complicating the process) and focus on, and assessing the responses to, the issues that NTIA had highlighted. No other comments from me on this or the other minutes. Thanks Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: 03 August 2015 20:28 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC Dear All, These attached and linked sets of minutes have been previously circulated and out for your final approval. Please send in any edits by Friday 7 July by 23:59 UTC, if no further comments are submitted by then, these minutes will be considered approved and published on the ICG web site. -ICG F2F Meeting Day 1 v1: http://icgsec.asia/1NO0O1W -ICG F2F Meeting Day 2 v2: http://icgsec.asia/1h44DWA -ICG F2F wrap up session v3 - this includes the correction to Paul's in-person attendance: http://icgsec.asia/1SDgQmd -ICG Call 19 v2- these include Martin's edits with all changes accepted: http://icgsec.asia/1K17pTD Minutes to ICG Call 20 and 21 will be circulated under separate cover. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Aug 10 13:43:23 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:43:23 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AF0902@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <01da01d0ce22$7a1daf00$6e590d00$@icgsec.asia> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AF0902@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <005e01d0d372$87d9e140$978da3c0$@icgsec.asia> Hi Martin, I have pulled the published version v-final of the wrap session minutes from the ICG web site, and re-published v-final-MB with your edit as attached and below: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/minutes/minutes-fifth-f2f -wrapsession-25-june-2015-final-MB.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:11 AM To: Jennifer Chung ; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC Hi Jennifer, In the wrap-up session face-to-face, I'd suggest that my flippant comment "(with analogies to 'War and Peace' and 'Ulysses')" could be deleted on page 5 ("Discussion re 'alternatives'" bullet 3). My point was that we should avoid producing lots more text (and complicating the process) and focus on, and assessing the responses to, the issues that NTIA had highlighted. No other comments from me on this or the other minutes. Thanks Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: 03 August 2015 20:28 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC Dear All, These attached and linked sets of minutes have been previously circulated and out for your final approval. Please send in any edits by Friday 7 July by 23:59 UTC, if no further comments are submitted by then, these minutes will be considered approved and published on the ICG web site. -ICG F2F Meeting Day 1 v1: http://icgsec.asia/1NO0O1W -ICG F2F Meeting Day 2 v2: http://icgsec.asia/1h44DWA -ICG F2F wrap up session v3 - this includes the correction to Paul's in-person attendance: http://icgsec.asia/1SDgQmd -ICG Call 19 v2- these include Martin's edits with all changes accepted: http://icgsec.asia/1K17pTD Minutes to ICG Call 20 and 21 will be circulated under separate cover. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-final-MB.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 424594 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Aug 10 13:54:58 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #7 - travel support Message-ID: <007301d0d374$2624fe10$726efa30$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, A friendly reminder that if you have not indicated to the Secretariat that you will require travel support for the ICG face-to-face meeting 7 in Dublin, Ireland - please do so by the end of tomorrow Tuesday 11 August 2015 by 23:59 UTC. If you have already sent in your travel support requests- you should have received a confirmation email from the Secretariat, if you have not received this, please contact me off list at admin at icgsec.asia . Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 3:39 PM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: ICG face-to-face meeting #7 - travel support Dear ICG Members, ICG face-to-face meeting #7 will be held in Dublin, Ireland with sessions on 17 (Sat), 18 (Sun), 22 (Thurs) and 23 (Fri) October 2015. In accordance with ICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (16-24 October) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. We invite you please to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin at icgsec.asia by Sunday 9 August 2015 at 23:59 UTC. Please also let the Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Aug 10 19:58:29 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:58:29 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: Volume 9: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions Message-ID: <011301d0d3a6$ee899410$cb9cbc30$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find Volume 9: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions below. Best Regards, Jennifer ---- Volume 9: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions A major milestone reached as two key proposals open for public comment The transition of IANA's stewardship is now another step nearer as two key proposals are opened for public comment: * The Consolidated IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal by the ICG * The 2nd Draft Report on Work Stream 1 Recommendations by the CCWG-Accountability The final version of both these proposals will eventually be submitted to the ICANN Board of Directors, who will transfer them to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( NTIA). More information on these proposals, and how you can comment on their contents, is below. Consolidated IANA stewardship transition proposal now open for public comment On 31 July, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group ( ICG) announced the start of the public comment period for the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. The proposal consists of the three proposals that have already reached consensus among the Domain Names, Numbering Resources and Protocol Parameters communities, as well as a report by the ICG, which includes an assessment of whether the three proposals: * Were developed using open and inclusive community processes, and whether they achieved consensus; * Are complete and clear; * Are compatible and interoperable, provide appropriate and properly supported accountability mechanisms, and are workable; and * Together meet the NTIA's criteria. The ICG notes that as the proposals have already undergone extensive public comment and discussionamongst the three operational communities, this public comment period is focused on how the three proposals work together as a whole and how it fares against the criteria established by NTIA for the transition. The proposal will be available for public comment for 40 days. Following community input during the comment period, the ICG will decide whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. The proposal will be available shortly in all six official United Nations (UN) languages and Portuguese, but is currently only available in English. The news release about the proposal, however, is available now in these seven languages, with all translations linked from the English version. Key links * IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal – 199 pages * Call for public comments – including 12 questions about specific issues the ICG is seeking feedback on * Archive of public comments received How to submit a public comment You can comment on the proposal, taking into account the ICG's 12 questions, by 8 September 2015, 23:59 UTC ( convert to your time zone). Comments can be submitted in one of two ways: * By using the online form After you have submitted the form, you will receive an automatically generated email asking you to click a link to confirm your submission. Your comments will then be posted to the archive of public comments. * By sending an email to public-comments at ianacg.org You may wish to use this template for your response. After submitting your comments you will receive two emails: the first confirms receipt of your email; the second confirms your comments have been posted to the comments archive. To help better understand the contents and context of the draft proposal, you may wish to join one of the two following webinars live: * 6 August, 19:00 – 20:30 UTC (time zone converter here) * 7 August, 11:00 – 12:30 UTC (time zone converter here) The webinars will also be live interpreted in the six UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) and Portuguese and the recording posted shortly afterward. The transcript will also be translated and posted after the webinars. CCWG-Accountability On 3 August, the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ( CCWG-Accountability) released its 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations. Since the first version of the proposal was released on 4 May, the CCWG-Accountability has taken a very open and agile approach to finding creative solutions to problems identified in previous iterations of their proposals. The second version also addresses a number of outstanding issues not fully fleshed out in the first draft. The most significant changes between the two drafts are: * Mechanism to empower the ICANN community The mechanism has undergone significant changes: in the May draft, there were two alternatives presented – member model and delegate model; following feedback received during the public comment period, the CCWG-Accountability brainstormed alternatives at ICANN53 in June, resulting in the development of an Empowered SO/AC model. Resulting from subsequent discussions at a face-to-face meeting in Paris in July, this second draft proposal presents the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model. * Four additional stress tests The new stress tests have been added following suggestions contained in the Larry Strickling's 16 June blog post on the NTIA website. * Refinements to key elements contained in the first draft These refinements include: * ICANN Mission & Core Values * Removal of individual ICANN Board Directors and recall of the entire Board * Independent Review Process * Community power regarding ICANN's budget * Work plan for Work Stream 2 (including adding a commitment to human rights in the ICANNBylaws) * Implementation plan for Work Stream 1 The proposal also includes "minority views", which are statements by CCWG-Accountability members and participants who object to recommendations contained in the report. Additional minority views received after 1 August will be available here. The proposal will be available for public comment for 40 days. After the public comment period closes, the CCWG-Accountability aims to finalize its Work Stream 1 proposal for submission to its Chartering Organizations (GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, ASO and SSAC) and then to the ICANN Board of Directors during or shortly after ICANN54 in Dublin. The proposal will then be submitted to the NTIA, along with the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. After Work Stream 1 is completed, the CCWG-Accountability will focus on Work Stream 2, which consists of accountability enhancements that do not need to be in place for the IANA stewardship transition to occur. Key links * 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations – 180 pages * Graphical Supplement [19 pages of pictorial representations of the main concepts included in the second draft] * Call for public comments * Archive of public comments received How to submit a public comment You can comment on the proposal by 12 September 2015, 23:59 UTC ( convert to your time zone). * Consider the CCWG-Accountability's three questions when developing your submissions: * Do you agree that the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability? * Are there elements of this proposal that would prevent you from approving it transmission to Chartering Organizations? * Does this proposal meet the requirements set forward by the CWG-Stewardship? * Send an email to comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15 at icann.org. To help better understand the contents and context of the draft proposal, you may wish to join one of the two following webinars live: * 4 August, 19:00 – 21:00 UTC (time zone converter here) * 7 August, 7:00 – 9:00 UTC (time zone converter here) The webinars will also be live interpreted in the six UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) and Portuguese and the recording posted shortly afterward. The transcript will also be translated and posted after the webinars. IANA stewardship in the news 4 Aug 2015 Netzverwaltung ICANN: Finaler Entwurf für künftige Aufsicht der DNS-Rootzone, Heise Online [DE] 3 Aug 2015 ICANN posts proposal to end US oversight of Internet, Agence France-Presses (AFP) Especialistas em Internet enviam esboço para EUA cederem supervisão de domínios, Reuters Brasil [PT] Keeping Internet open and free, The Malaysian Insider [EN] 30 Jul 2015 How Congress Can Halt Government Control of the Internet, The Daily Signal [EN] 20 Jul 2015 IANA TRANSITION e ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY: De onde viemos e para onde vamos?, Observatório da Internet no Brasil [PT] Upcoming key dates 4 Aug 2015 Webinar: CCWG-Accountability 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) proposal 6 Aug 2015 Webinar: ICG IANA Stewardship Transition proposal 7 Aug 2015 Webinar: ICG IANA Stewardship Transition proposal Webinar: CCWG-Accountability 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) proposal 8 Sep 2015 Public Comment Period on ICG's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal closes 12 Sep 2015 Public Comment Period for CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) closes 18-19 Sep 2015 ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, Los Angeles 30 Sep-15 Oct 2015 CCWG-Accountability's 2nd and final proposal (Work Stream 1) presented to ALAC, ASO,ccNSO, GAC and GNSO for their approval. 18-22 Oct 2015 ICANN 54 inc. ICG Face-to-Face meeting and presentation of proposals for IANAstewardship and ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) to the ICANNBoard for subsequent transmission to the NTIA. Week 1, Nov 2015 ICANN Board transmits IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability (Work Stream 1) proposals to NTIA. You can play a role in IANA's future Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANN accountability. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff at icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 7 August 2015 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Aug 11 21:23:42 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:23:42 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: <20150808070052.5267538.63086.23085@yahoo.com> References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> <20150808070052.5267538.63086.23085@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <70FB5275-F84F-491E-AA08-36C3D937EC04@cooperw.in> Thanks all. Let’s go ahead and suspend the forum. Jennifer, can you effectuate that and make the appropriate announcement on our site? Thanks, Alissa On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Mary Uduma wrote: > +1 > Mary Uduma > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. > From: Russ Mundy > Sent: Friday, 7 August 2015 21:08 > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: Russ Mundy; IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? > > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> Yes, I think that makes sense. >> A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way > > +1 - makes sense to me to have a single comment “channel” active at a time. Russ M > >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM >> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? >> >> Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? >> >> Alissa >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> From: Alissa Cooper >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >> Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT >> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson >> >> Hi Olivier, >> >> The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >> >> Dear Jonathan and Alissa, >> >> I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? >> Kindest regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >> Alissa, >> >> Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. >> >> Jonathan >> >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >> Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 >> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill >> >> CWG, >> >> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments , the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. >> >> The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Aug 11 21:31:47 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:31:47 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Sounds good. Manal, if you and Lynn can propose additions that would be excellent. Thanks, Alissa On Aug 8, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Thanks .. very useful .. > I still have to go through them but I agree with Lynn, there were only a few .. > > In principle, I think we should add only questions about the overall proposal (compatibility/workability) or about the ICG findings and/or role .. > I recall many questions about details of the individual proposals and don't think we should add those (maybe share them with chairs of the relevant OCs or WGs?) > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:51 PM > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Hi Alissa, > > I think there were a small number of questions that we should think about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this weekend at a wedding). > > Best, > Lynn > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). >> >> Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? >> >> 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 From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Aug 11 21:34:34 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:34:34 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): Thoughts? Alissa On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. > > Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). > > It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! > > > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 > To: Daniel Karrenberg > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments > > On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > >> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." > > Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? > > Alissa > >> >> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >> >> Daniel >> >> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>> >>> >>> >>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>> >>> * Individual >>> >>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>> >>> * Organisation input >>> >>> >>> >>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>> >>> >>> >>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>> this evening. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Aug 11 21:36:31 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:36:31 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <55CA6ADF.4030208@oracle.com> One of the biggest was around the jurisdiction confusion. Does anyone know if ICANN drafted anything related to that? I also think that a general and permeating confusion, including related to jurisdiction, is between what related to IANA transition and broader ICANN/Internet policy issues... On 8/11/2015 5:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Sounds good. Manal, if you and Lynn can propose additions that would be excellent. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Aug 8, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > >> Thanks .. very useful .. >> I still have to go through them but I agree with Lynn, there were only a few .. >> >> In principle, I think we should add only questions about the overall proposal (compatibility/workability) or about the ICG findings and/or role .. >> I recall many questions about details of the individual proposals and don't think we should add those (maybe share them with chairs of the relevant OCs or WGs?) >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:51 PM >> To: Alissa Cooper >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> >> Hi Alissa, >> >> I think there were a small number of questions that we should think about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this weekend at a wedding). >> >> Best, >> Lynn >> >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). >>> >>> Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? >>> >>> 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 From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Tue Aug 11 21:38:57 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:38:57 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <55CA6B71.60400@oracle.com> Alissa: Not to be too dogmatic, but - I would also add a question asking the person to list his/her organization title or other authorization to file for the organization. Joe On 8/11/2015 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: > > Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): > > Thoughts? > > Alissa > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > >> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >> >> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >> >> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >> >> >> Martin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >> To: Daniel Karrenberg >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >> >> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >> >> Alissa >> >>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>> >>>> * Individual >>>> >>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>> >>>> * Organisation input >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>> this evening. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Aug 11 21:41:46 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:41:46 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to Richard Hill In-Reply-To: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> References: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: All, Here is a proposed response to this comment. What do you think? Alissa ---- Dear Richard, Thank you for submitting your comments to the ICG. We note your view on the process for consensus in CWG Stewardship for the document produced. The ICG also notes that the CWG Stewardship has taken notice of your view as explained in email from Lise Fuhr that can be found here: . The ICG evaluation of how the CWG Stewardship process meets the NTIA requirements is in the ICG document that is out for open consultation as explained here: . Regrading the specific question on what is the basis for ICG to evaluate comments addressed to the operational communities, please have a look at section 2a in the ICG comments handling process , which says "ICG in its discretion will raise the issues or question to the relevant OC with a request that they provide a timely and appropriate reply." This was exactly what ICG did. In general the ICG had the ability at any time to make a statement as long as we fulfil our mandate and charter. Furthermore, the original comments posted in the ICG Forum were not addressed to the CWG Stewardship but instead addressed to the ICG, and because of that the ICG did take action. Kind Regards, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: > > 7 August – “Comment on handling of my previous comment on the CWG-Stewardship proposal” from Richard Hill. > > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-August/000003.html > > 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 Tue Aug 11 22:36:09 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC Message-ID: <019d01d0d486$1f645680$5e2d0380$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The previously circulated minutes (ICG face-to-face meeting 5, all days, and ICG Call 19) have been approved and published on the ICG archive here: http://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:43 AM To: 'Martin Boyle' ; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC Hi Martin, I have pulled the published version v-final of the wrap session minutes from the ICG web site, and re-published v-final-MB with your edit as attached and below: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/meetings/archives/minutes/minutes-fifth-f2f -wrapsession-25-june-2015-final-MB.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:11 AM To: Jennifer Chung >; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC Hi Jennifer, In the wrap-up session face-to-face, I'd suggest that my flippant comment "(with analogies to 'War and Peace' and 'Ulysses')" could be deleted on page 5 ("Discussion re 'alternatives'" bullet 3). My point was that we should avoid producing lots more text (and complicating the process) and focus on, and assessing the responses to, the issues that NTIA had highlighted. No other comments from me on this or the other minutes. Thanks Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: 03 August 2015 20:28 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - comments requested by Friday 7 July 2015, 23:59 UTC Dear All, These attached and linked sets of minutes have been previously circulated and out for your final approval. Please send in any edits by Friday 7 July by 23:59 UTC, if no further comments are submitted by then, these minutes will be considered approved and published on the ICG web site. -ICG F2F Meeting Day 1 v1: http://icgsec.asia/1NO0O1W -ICG F2F Meeting Day 2 v2: http://icgsec.asia/1h44DWA -ICG F2F wrap up session v3 - this includes the correction to Paul's in-person attendance: http://icgsec.asia/1SDgQmd -ICG Call 19 v2- these include Martin's edits with all changes accepted: http://icgsec.asia/1K17pTD Minutes to ICG Call 20 and 21 will be circulated under separate cover. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Aug 11 23:35:24 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:35:24 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? In-Reply-To: <70FB5275-F84F-491E-AA08-36C3D937EC04@cooperw.in> References: <0F4207E3-C660-41DE-A376-535503888AE1@cooperw.in> <20150808070052.5267538.63086.23085@yahoo.com> <70FB5275-F84F-491E-AA08-36C3D937EC04@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <01b601d0d48e$67152d30$353f8790$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, This has been done - please see the notice on the homepage side bar at https://www.ianacg.org. There is also an auto-response set for anyone sending in emails to the icg-forum that reads as follows: "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is suspending the icg-forum during the public comment period (31 July - 8 September 2015). Please go to https://comments.ianacg.org to comment on the transition proposal." Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:24 PM To: Mary Uduma Cc: Russ Mundy ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? Thanks all. Let's go ahead and suspend the forum. Jennifer, can you effectuate that and make the appropriate announcement on our site? Thanks, Alissa On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Mary Uduma > wrote: +1 Mary Uduma Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Russ Mundy Sent: Friday, 7 August 2015 21:08 To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: Russ Mundy; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Yes, I think that makes sense. A notification could be published saying that we are now in the public comment period for the final proposal and comments should come in that way +1 - makes sense to me to have a single comment "channel" active at a time. Russ M From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 12:44 PM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group < internal-cg at ianacg.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] Suspend ICG forum during public comment period? Per my exchange below with Olivier, do people think we should suspend the ICG forum during the public comment period so that we receive all comments through a single channel and they all get posted in one place to the public comment archive? Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill Date: August 7, 2015 at 9:40:10 AM PDT To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < ocl at gih.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org, Jonathan Robinson < jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> Hi Olivier, The ICG forum has existed since shortly after the ICG was formed in 2014 and we have received a smattering of comments there over the course of the last year. The comments referenced below were received before the opening of the ICG public comment period. It is a good question whether we should at this point suspend the forum so that people are not confused about how to submit comments to us, as we have separate submission mechanisms for public comments about the transition proposal. I will raise this with the ICG. Thanks, Alissa On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < ocl at gih.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan and Alissa, I have a question about process here: how are the ICG and the CWG treating comments that fall outside a public consultation period? Are these receiving special treatment and if so, why? I note the CWG has just opened a public consultation period - should these comment have gone into the CWG consultation rather than using this seemingly special track? Kindest regards, Olivier On 28/07/2015 11:54, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Alissa, Thank-you for this, please do go ahead and send the ICG thoughts on this through to the CWG. Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [ mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: 27 July 2015 16:39 To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments from Richard Hill CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: < http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html> According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments < https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May1 5-final.pdf>, the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ 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 Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Aug 12 01:18:47 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:18:47 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <13B24FBE-2561-4EAA-BE7E-ADA466276294@LStAmour.org> Hi Manal, all, I agree with Manal's point below, and will send a draft out later tonight for review. Best, Lynn On Aug 8, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Thanks .. very useful .. > I still have to go through them but I agree with Lynn, there were only a few .. > > In principle, I think we should add only questions about the overall proposal (compatibility/workability) or about the ICG findings and/or role .. > I recall many questions about details of the individual proposals and don't think we should add those (maybe share them with chairs of the relevant OCs or WGs?) > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:51 PM > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Hi Alissa, > > I think there were a small number of questions that we should think about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this weekend at a wedding). > > Best, > Lynn > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). >> >> Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? >> >> 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 From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Aug 12 03:58:00 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:58:00 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Here for your review… possible additional FAQ questions. Look forward to your comments/edits. Will also post on Dropbox under "FAQ". Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA transition - possible FAQ additions 8-11-2015.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 127677 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Sounds good. Manal, if you and Lynn can propose additions that would be excellent. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On Aug 8, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > >> Thanks .. very useful .. >> I still have to go through them but I agree with Lynn, there were only a few .. >> >> In principle, I think we should add only questions about the overall proposal (compatibility/workability) or about the ICG findings and/or role .. >> I recall many questions about details of the individual proposals and don't think we should add those (maybe share them with chairs of the relevant OCs or WGs?) >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:51 PM >> To: Alissa Cooper >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> >> Hi Alissa, >> >> I think there were a small number of questions that we should think about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this weekend at a wedding). >> >> Best, >> Lynn >> >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). >>> >>> Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? >>> >>> 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 > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 06:15:42 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Dear Joe In CCWG this issue was extensively debated and thereasults contained in Section 11.3 of the Second Proposal Regards Kavouss See below 11. Items for Consideration in Work Stream 2 The CCWG-Accountability Charter states that: In the discussions around the accountability process, the CCWG-Accountability will proceed with two Work Streams: - *Work Stream 1:* focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; - *Work Stream 2:* focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. While Work Stream 2 is not necessary to be implemented or committed to before the transition takes place, the Charter insists that they should remain firmly within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability. The items listed below should therefore be considered as no less important than the Work Stream 1 items. *11.1 Commitment to Work Stream 2* Concerns were raised within the CCWG-Accountability about the incentives for ICANN to implement Work Stream 2 proposals when they are finalized after the IANA Stewardship Transition has taken place. The CCWG-Accountability recommends an interim Bylaw provision to ensure ICANN’s commitment, noting that such provisions have been successfully used in the past.[1] *Recommendation:* The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. The language of this transitional Bylaw provision should provide to CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 recommendations, when supported by Full consensus or consensus as described in the CCWG-Accountability Charter, and endorsed by the Chartering organizations, similar status to recommendations from AoC Review Teams.[2] The Board’s decision would be subject to challenge through enhanced Reconsideration and Independent Review processes. *11.2 Items for Consideration in Work Stream 2* During the course of its deliberations, the CCWG-Accountability encountered several items that it considered should be resolved as part of Work Stream 2. The list at the date of this report is as follows: - Refining the *operational details* of Work Stream 1 proposals, including but not limited to: - Establishing rules of procedure for the enhanced Independent Review Process. - Improving ICANN's budgeting and planning process to guarantee the ability for the community to have input, and for that input to be given due consideration. - Defining ICANN Community Forum practical modalities. - Clarifying understanding of the fiduciary duties of Board Directors and related expectations concerning Director behavior for the Board. - Further assessing enhancements to *governments participation* in ICANN. - Considering the issue of *jurisdiction* as described in Section 11.3 below. - Enhancing *SO and AC accountability* (see Section 8.3). - Instituting a *culture of transparency* within the ICANN organization: - Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency and disclosure requests. - Enhancing the Ombudsman's role and function. - Enhancing ICANN's whistleblower policy. - Increasing transparency about ICANN interactions with governments. - Defining security *audits* and certification requirements for ICANN’s IT systems. - Considering improvements to *diversity* in all its aspects at all levels of the organization (see Section 8.1). - Defining the modalities of how ICANN integrates *human rights* impact analyses, within its mission. *11.3 Jurisdiction: A Multi-Layered Issue* Jurisdiction directly influences the way ICANN's accountability processes are structured and operationalized. The fact that ICANN today operates under the legislation of the state of California grants the corporation certain rights and implies the existence of certain accountability mechanisms but also imposes some limits with respect to the accountability mechanisms it can adopt. The topic of jurisdiction is, as a consequence, of relevance for the CCWG-Accountability. In particular, a question one may ask to frame the discussion is, “Can ICANN’s accountability be enhanced depending on the laws applicable to its actions?” *Current situation: * ICANN is a public benefit corporation incorporated in California and subject to California state laws applicable U.S. federal laws and both state and federal court jurisdiction. ICANN is also a tax exempt entity under U.S. federal tax law. In addition, ICANN is subject to a provision in paragraph 8 of the Affirmation of Commitments signed in 2009 between ICANN and the U.S. Government, through its Commerce Department, as follows: *8. ICANN affirms its commitments to: (a) maintain the capacity and ability to coordinate the Internet DNS at the overall level and to work for the maintenance of a single, interoperable Internet; (b) remain a not for profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world to meet the needs of a global community; and (c) to operate as a multi-stakeholder, private sector led organization with input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act. * ICANN’s Bylaws also state that its principal offices shall be in California as follows: *ARTICLE XVIII: OFFICES AND SEAL* *Section 1. OFFICES* The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish. ICANN also has offices in other countries and operates in other regions of the world and is subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which it has offices and operates. *A Multi-Layered Issue: * The CCWG-Accountability has acknowledged that jurisdiction is a multi-layered issue and has identified the following "layers”: 1. *Place and jurisdiction of incorporation & operations, including governance of internal affairs, tax system, human resources, etc. * *Associated requirements: * 1. Strong corporate governance legislation, providing efficient accountability, 2. At the same time enabling flexibility so that the multistakeholder model can be translated into this legal framework. 1. *Jurisdiction of places of physical presence.* *Associated requirements:* 1. Places of physical presence need to provide stable labor legal frameworks (to hire staff) 2. Some level of flexibility for visas (to accommodate international staff and travel by community members) 3. Physical presence should also take into account security concerns, both for the sake of staff as well as for operations. 1. *Governing law for contracts with registrars and registries and ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction about contractual relationships. * *Associated requirements:* 1. Stable and predictable legal regime 2. Affordability of legal actions for parties other than ICANN (both in terms of costs and in terms of understanding the legal system) 3. Balancing the need for level playing field amongst contracted parties across the globe and the necessity of each contracted party to comply with national legislation 1. *Ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction for action & inaction of staff, and for redress and review of Board Decisions, IRP, and other Accountability and Transparency issues, including the Affirmation of Commitments * *Associated requirements:* 1. On the one hand, some stakeholders consider that the ability to enforce the accountability mechanisms in front of a court are essential. 2. On the other hand, other stakeholders do not find acceptable that the legal system of a single country would play such a role in ICANN’s accountability framework. Their requirement would be to avoid as much as possible the use of any single country’s legal system. 1. *Relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues (ccTLDs mangers, protected names either for international institutions or country and other geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, freedom of expression* *Associated requirements:* 1. No specific jurisdiction should be in a position to over-rule domestic jurisdictions when dealing with particular domestic issues (for example jurisdiction of incorporation interfering with a decision regarding a specific ccTLD policy). 2. Some commenters have touched upon the possibility of tailor-made host country agreements. 1. *Meeting NTIA requirements* An overarching requirement of the CCWG-Accountability is represented by the criteria set by the NTIA at the outset of the IANA Stewardship Transition. Associated requirements: 1. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model 2. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS 3. Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services 4. Maintain the openness of the Internet 5. The proposal cannot replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. *Initial gap assessment based on current CCWG-Accountability proposals: * At this point of the work of the CCWG-Accountability, taking into account the comments received, the following issues have been identified for further investigation: - Requirement 4 (ability to sue and be sued to enforce Bylaws or accountability mechanisms): while some consider this requirement to be necessary, others would avoid as much as possible the use of any single country’s legal system. - Trade-off between CCWG-Accountability requirements and options under California law, particularly when discussing the community empowerment model. - Whether IRP decisions against ICANN would be binding despite local jurisdiction decisions. - Requirement 3 on governing law for contracts with registrars and registries may require further investigation. While these issues require further investigation, the CCWG-Accountability has not yet conducted a substantive examination of alternative jurisdictions that would better fit its requirements. While some commenters suggest that incorporation of ICANN under other legal systems, such as Swiss not-for-profit, would be beneficial (yet the basis for their assumption remains uncertain), further analysis and deliberation is needed on a fact-based approach to be entertained during Work Stream 2. *Next steps * Consideration of jurisdiction in Work Stream 2 will include: - Confirming and assessing the gap analysis, clarifying all concerns regarding the multi-layer jurisdiction issue. - Identifying potential alternatives and benchmarking their ability to match all CCWG-Accountability requirements them with the current framework. - Consider potential Work Stream 2 recommendations based on the conclusions of this analysis. The timeline considered for this work is consistent with the overall approach for Work Stream 2. A specific subgroup of the CCWG-Accountability will be formed and, while reporting to the CCWG-Accountability as a whole, tasked to undertake the steps described above. Two periods of public comments are envisaged, around ICANN55 and ICANN56. Recommendations will be submitted by ICANN57. ------------------------------ [1] ICANN has, where appropriate, used transitional provisions within its Bylaws to identify issues that are necessary to address on a transitional basis, but will expire upon the occurrence of another event. The broadest use of a transitional provision was in 2002, after the large ICANN Evolution and Reform effort, which made commitments to future occurrences such as a new MoU between ICANN and a group of Regional Internet Registries at the time when new obligations would come into force for the ASO, or obligations that would be taken on by the ccNSO once formed. See https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/Bylaws-2002-12-15-en#XX . There is also precedent for the use of transitional terms after the GNSO was restructured, and the Board seat selected by the At-Large Community was implemented. [2] The transitional Bylaw provisions will require the ICANN Board to consider approval and begin implementation of review team recommendations within six months. 2015-08-12 5:58 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour : > Here for your review… possible additional FAQ questions. > > Look forward to your comments/edits. Will also post on Dropbox under > "FAQ". > > Best, > Lynn > > > > > On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > Sounds good. Manal, if you and Lynn can propose additions that would be > excellent. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > On Aug 8, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > > > >> Thanks .. very useful .. > >> I still have to go through them but I agree with Lynn, there were only > a few .. > >> > >> In principle, I think we should add only questions about the overall > proposal (compatibility/workability) or about the ICG findings and/or role > .. > >> I recall many questions about details of the individual proposals and > don't think we should add those (maybe share them with chairs of the > relevant OCs or WGs?) > >> > >> Kind Regards > >> --Manal > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Lynn St.Amour > >> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:51 PM > >> To: Alissa Cooper > >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > >> > >> Hi Alissa, > >> > >> I think there were a small number of questions that we should think > about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this > weekend at a wedding). > >> > >> Best, > >> Lynn > >> > >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> > >>> The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the > webinars (attached). > >>> > >>> Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Alissa > >>> > >>> 2.xlsx>_______________________________________________ > >>> 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 Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Aug 12 13:00:51 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Thank you Kavouss, very helpful. will review to see what we might include or reference as there is alot of information here. Best, Lynn On Aug 12, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Joe > In CCWG this issue was extensively debated and thereasults contained in Section 11.3 of the Second Proposal > Regards > Kavouss > See below > 11. Items for Consideration in Work Stream 2 > > The CCWG-Accountability Charter states that: > > In the discussions around the accountability process, the CCWG-Accountability will proceed with two Work Streams: > > • Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; > • Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. > While Work Stream 2 is not necessary to be implemented or committed to before the transition takes place, the Charter insists that they should remain firmly within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability. The items listed below should therefore be considered as no less important than the Work Stream 1 items. > > 11.1 Commitment to Work Stream 2 > > Concerns were raised within the CCWG-Accountability about the incentives for ICANN to implement Work Stream 2 proposals when they are finalized after the IANA Stewardship Transition has taken place. The CCWG-Accountability recommends an interim Bylaw provision to ensure ICANN’s commitment, noting that such provisions have been successfully used in the past.[1] > > Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's accountability including, but not limited to the following list of issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA Stewardship Transition. > > The language of this transitional Bylaw provision should provide to CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 recommendations, when supported by Full consensus or consensus as described in the CCWG-Accountability Charter, and endorsed by the Chartering organizations, similar status to recommendations from AoC Review Teams.[2] The Board’s decision would be subject to challenge through enhanced Reconsideration and Independent Review processes. > > 11.2 Items for Consideration in Work Stream 2 > > During the course of its deliberations, the CCWG-Accountability encountered several items that it considered should be resolved as part of Work Stream 2. The list at the date of this report is as follows: > > • Refining the operational details of Work Stream 1 proposals, including but not limited to: > • Establishing rules of procedure for the enhanced Independent Review Process. > • Improving ICANN's budgeting and planning process to guarantee the ability for the community to have input, and for that input to be given due consideration. > • Defining ICANN Community Forum practical modalities. > • Clarifying understanding of the fiduciary duties of Board Directors and related expectations concerning Director behavior for the Board. > • Further assessing enhancements to governments participation in ICANN. > • Considering the issue of jurisdiction as described in Section 11.3 below. > • Enhancing SO and AC accountability (see Section 8.3). > • Instituting a culture of transparency within the ICANN organization: > • Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency and disclosure requests. > • Enhancing the Ombudsman's role and function. > • Enhancing ICANN's whistleblower policy. > • Increasing transparency about ICANN interactions with governments. > • Defining security audits and certification requirements for ICANN’s IT systems. > • Considering improvements to diversity in all its aspects at all levels of the organization (see Section 8.1). > • Defining the modalities of how ICANN integrates human rights impact analyses, within its mission. > 11.3 Jurisdiction: A Multi-Layered Issue > > Jurisdiction directly influences the way ICANN's accountability processes are structured and operationalized. The fact that ICANN today operates under the legislation of the state of California grants the corporation certain rights and implies the existence of certain accountability mechanisms but also imposes some limits with respect to the accountability mechanisms it can adopt. The topic of jurisdiction is, as a consequence, of relevance for the CCWG-Accountability. In particular, a question one may ask to frame the discussion is, “Can ICANN’s accountability be enhanced depending on the laws applicable to its actions?” > > Current situation: > > ICANN is a public benefit corporation incorporated in California and subject to California state laws applicable U.S. federal laws and both state and federal court jurisdiction. ICANN is also a tax exempt entity under U.S. federal tax law. > > In addition, ICANN is subject to a provision in paragraph 8 of the Affirmation of Commitments signed in 2009 between ICANN and the U.S. Government, through its Commerce Department, as follows: > > 8. ICANN affirms its commitments to: (a) maintain the capacity and ability to coordinate the Internet DNS at the overall level and to work for the maintenance of a single, interoperable Internet; (b) remain a not for profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world to meet the needs of a global community; and (c) to operate as a multi-stakeholder, private sector led organization with input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act. > > ICANN’s Bylaws also state that its principal offices shall be in California as follows: > > ARTICLE XVIII: OFFICES AND SEAL > > Section 1. OFFICES > > The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish. > > ICANN also has offices in other countries and operates in other regions of the world and is subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which it has offices and operates. > > A Multi-Layered Issue: > > The CCWG-Accountability has acknowledged that jurisdiction is a multi-layered issue and has identified the following "layers”: > > • Place and jurisdiction of incorporation & operations, including governance of internal affairs, tax system, human resources, etc. > Associated requirements: > > • Strong corporate governance legislation, providing efficient accountability, > > • At the same time enabling flexibility so that the multistakeholder model can be translated into this legal framework. > > > • Jurisdiction of places of physical presence. > Associated requirements: > > • Places of physical presence need to provide stable labor legal frameworks (to hire staff) > > • Some level of flexibility for visas (to accommodate international staff and travel by community members) > > • Physical presence should also take into account security concerns, both for the sake of staff as well as for operations. > > > • Governing law for contracts with registrars and registries and ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction about contractual relationships. > Associated requirements: > > • Stable and predictable legal regime > > • Affordability of legal actions for parties other than ICANN (both in terms of costs and in terms of understanding the legal system) > > • Balancing the need for level playing field amongst contracted parties across the globe and the necessity of each contracted party to comply with national legislation > > > • Ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction for action & inaction of staff, and for redress and review of Board Decisions, IRP, and other Accountability and Transparency issues, including the Affirmation of Commitments > Associated requirements: > > • On the one hand, some stakeholders consider that the ability to enforce the accountability mechanisms in front of a court are essential. > > • On the other hand, other stakeholders do not find acceptable that the legal system of a single country would play such a role in ICANN’s accountability framework. Their requirement would be to avoid as much as possible the use of any single country’s legal system. > > > • Relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues (ccTLDs mangers, protected names either for international institutions or country and other geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, freedom of expression > Associated requirements: > > • No specific jurisdiction should be in a position to over-rule domestic jurisdictions when dealing with particular domestic issues (for example jurisdiction of incorporation interfering with a decision regarding a specific ccTLD policy). > > • Some commenters have touched upon the possibility of tailor-made host country agreements. > > > • Meeting NTIA requirements > An overarching requirement of the CCWG-Accountability is represented by the criteria set by the NTIA at the outset of the IANA Stewardship Transition. > > Associated requirements: > > • Support and enhance the multistakeholder model > > • Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS > > • Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services > > • Maintain the openness of the Internet > > • The proposal cannot replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. > > Initial gap assessment based on current CCWG-Accountability proposals: > > At this point of the work of the CCWG-Accountability, taking into account the comments received, the following issues have been identified for further investigation: > > • Requirement 4 (ability to sue and be sued to enforce Bylaws or accountability mechanisms): while some consider this requirement to be necessary, others would avoid as much as possible the use of any single country’s legal system. > • Trade-off between CCWG-Accountability requirements and options under California law, particularly when discussing the community empowerment model. > • Whether IRP decisions against ICANN would be binding despite local jurisdiction decisions. > • Requirement 3 on governing law for contracts with registrars and registries may require further investigation. > While these issues require further investigation, the CCWG-Accountability has not yet conducted a substantive examination of alternative jurisdictions that would better fit its requirements. While some commenters suggest that incorporation of ICANN under other legal systems, such as Swiss not-for-profit, would be beneficial (yet the basis for their assumption remains uncertain), further analysis and deliberation is needed on a fact-based approach to be entertained during Work Stream 2. > > Next steps > > Consideration of jurisdiction in Work Stream 2 will include: > > • Confirming and assessing the gap analysis, clarifying all concerns regarding the multi-layer jurisdiction issue. > • Identifying potential alternatives and benchmarking their ability to match all CCWG-Accountability requirements them with the current framework. > • Consider potential Work Stream 2 recommendations based on the conclusions of this analysis. > The timeline considered for this work is consistent with the overall approach for Work Stream 2. A specific subgroup of the CCWG-Accountability will be formed and, while reporting to the CCWG-Accountability as a whole, tasked to undertake the steps described above. Two periods of public comments are envisaged, around ICANN55 and ICANN56. Recommendations will be submitted by ICANN57. > > > > [1] ICANN has, where appropriate, used transitional provisions within its Bylaws to identify issues that are necessary to address on a transitional basis, but will expire upon the occurrence of another event. The broadest use of a transitional provision was in 2002, after the large ICANN Evolution and Reform effort, which made commitments to future occurrences such as a new MoU between ICANN and a group of Regional Internet Registries at the time when new obligations would come into force for the ASO, or obligations that would be taken on by the ccNSO once formed. See https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/Bylaws-2002-12-15-en#XX. > > There is also precedent for the use of transitional terms after the GNSO was restructured, and the Board seat selected by the At-Large Community was implemented. > > [2] The transitional Bylaw provisions will require the ICANN Board to consider approval and begin implementation of review team recommendations within six months. > > 2015-08-12 5:58 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour : > Here for your review… possible additional FAQ questions. > > Look forward to your comments/edits. Will also post on Dropbox under "FAQ". > > Best, > Lynn > > > > > On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > Sounds good. Manal, if you and Lynn can propose additions that would be excellent. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > On Aug 8, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > > > >> Thanks .. very useful .. > >> I still have to go through them but I agree with Lynn, there were only a few .. > >> > >> In principle, I think we should add only questions about the overall proposal (compatibility/workability) or about the ICG findings and/or role .. > >> I recall many questions about details of the individual proposals and don't think we should add those (maybe share them with chairs of the relevant OCs or WGs?) > >> > >> Kind Regards > >> --Manal > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > >> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:51 PM > >> To: Alissa Cooper > >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > >> > >> Hi Alissa, > >> > >> I think there were a small number of questions that we should think about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this weekend at a wedding). > >> > >> Best, > >> Lynn > >> > >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> > >>> The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). > >>> > >>> Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? > >>> > >>> 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 > > From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Aug 12 13:10:55 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:10:55 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Colleagues, Joe Alhadeff and I are reviewing these and you may want to hold your reviews until the next version (expected later today). If you have started reviewing this version, great. Please send any comments along. Best, Lynn On Aug 11, 2015, at 11:58 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Here for your review… possible additional FAQ questions. > > Look forward to your comments/edits. Will also post on Dropbox under "FAQ". > > Best, > Lynn > > > > On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Sounds good. Manal, if you and Lynn can propose additions that would be excellent. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> On Aug 8, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: >> >>> Thanks .. very useful .. >>> I still have to go through them but I agree with Lynn, there were only a few .. >>> >>> In principle, I think we should add only questions about the overall proposal (compatibility/workability) or about the ICG findings and/or role .. >>> I recall many questions about details of the individual proposals and don't think we should add those (maybe share them with chairs of the relevant OCs or WGs?) >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >>> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:51 PM >>> To: Alissa Cooper >>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>> >>> Hi Alissa, >>> >>> I think there were a small number of questions that we should think about adding to the FAQ. I am happy to look at that on Monday (away this weekend at a wedding). >>> >>> Best, >>> Lynn >>> >>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> The secretariat recorded the questions that were asked during the webinars (attached). >>>> >>>> Do people think any of these should prompt us to add Q&As to our FAQ? >>>> >>>> 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 From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Aug 12 13:19:16 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:19:16 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Lynn I have problems with some of your proposed answers. On payment for PTI you wrote: A: The PTI will be funded just as it is today. ICANN currently performs the IANA functions, but collects no specific fees for them. ICANN does collect fees from ICANN-accredited gTLD registries and registrars, and some ccTLD registries, which in turn funds the IANA functions. This is not correct, or at least I hope it is not. I would suggest: A: PTI and ICANN will have a contract, and the funding level for PTI's operations will be specified in this contract. This will make the costs associated with supporting IANA functions more open and explicit. ICANN will support these costs out of its budget, which is based on its collection of fees from contracted registries and registrars who use the IANA functions, and from some ccTLD registries and Regional Internet Registries that make contributions to ICANN. On the US government influence question, your answer really ducks the question imho and we can ill afford to be perceived as ducking this sensitive issue. You wrote: A: There is not "a single" transfer or "a single" transition of the IANA Stewardship responsibility (that is, the oversight role). That responsibility occurs across the three Operating Communities where it has largely lived anyway. Those varied processes (and the OC's themselves) are open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder, and they follow consensus policies developed by their communities. It is these characteristics and the very global participation that will help ensure fairness. I frankly don't see how that answers the question. I would suggest: A: The IANA transition completely eliminates the US Government's role as the contracting authority over the IANA functions, as well as its approval authority over all DNS root zone changes. Thus, the US government no longer has any unique or special authority over this aspect of Internet governance. On the jurisdiction question, I have discussed this several times with people in India and Brazil and think I understand pretty well what the concern is and would propose this: Q: As the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged, and the PTI will also be incorporated in the US, does this mean there is effectively no change to the role of the US Government? A: No. As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. While ICANN and PTI are still jurisdictionally based in California, its policies, bylaws and governance practices will be shaped by its board members, community accountability mechanisms, supporting organizations, and advisory committees. These entities which are composed of people and organizations from all over the world. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn > St.Amour > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:58 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Here for your review... possible additional FAQ questions. > > Look forward to your comments/edits. Will also post on Dropbox under > "FAQ". > > Best, > Lynn From mundy at tislabs.com Wed Aug 12 14:01:44 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:01:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. Russ M On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: > > Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): > > Thoughts? > > Alissa > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > >> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >> >> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >> >> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >> >> >> Martin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >> To: Daniel Karrenberg >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >> >> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >> >> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >> >> Alissa >> >>> >>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>> >>>> * Individual >>>> >>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>> >>>> * Organisation input >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>> this evening. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 paf at frobbit.se Wed Aug 12 14:11:53 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:11:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> Message-ID: <6EB41027-D2D1-4958-8015-AEB16D22ECB9@frobbit.se> I think we are in the position that we have launched the open consultation, with a certain set of questions. Changing them will make it difficult to evaluate the response. Did they fetch the instructions before or after we changed them? So even if we have discovered a possible "issue" I think we have to face the fact that we are where we are, and simply evaluate the responses given what people write. Including the fact they might have misunderstood what we ask for. I.e. regardless of what changes we might think is needed, I will be very conservative to make changes as the consultation is live. Patrik On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:01, Russ Mundy wrote: > I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): > > As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. > > If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? > > Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. > > Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. > > Russ M > > On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >> >> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >> >>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>> >>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>> >>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>> >>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>> >>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>> >>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> >>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>> >>>>> * Individual >>>>> >>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>> >>>>> * Organisation input >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>> this evening. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Aug 12 14:29:55 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:29:55 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <5DAED11F-DB0E-407E-8119-D8BAEAED9FCA@LStAmour.org> Thanks Milton, will review these prior to the next version. Lynn On Aug 12, 2015, at 9:19 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: > Lynn > > I have problems with some of your proposed answers. > > On payment for PTI you wrote: > > A: The PTI will be funded just as it is today. ICANN currently performs the IANA functions, but collects no specific fees for them. ICANN does collect fees from ICANN-accredited gTLD registries and registrars, and some ccTLD registries, which in turn funds the IANA functions. > > This is not correct, or at least I hope it is not. I would suggest: > > A: PTI and ICANN will have a contract, and the funding level for PTI's operations will be specified in this contract. This will make the costs associated with supporting IANA functions more open and explicit. ICANN will support these costs out of its budget, which is based on its collection of fees from contracted registries and registrars who use the IANA functions, and from some ccTLD registries and Regional Internet Registries that make contributions to ICANN. > > On the US government influence question, your answer really ducks the question imho and we can ill afford to be perceived as ducking this sensitive issue. You wrote: > > A: There is not "a single" transfer or "a single" transition of the IANA Stewardship responsibility (that is, the oversight role). That responsibility occurs across the three Operating Communities where it has largely lived anyway. Those varied processes (and the OC's themselves) are open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder, and they follow consensus policies developed by their communities. It is these characteristics and the very global participation that will help ensure fairness. > > I frankly don't see how that answers the question. I would suggest: > > A: The IANA transition completely eliminates the US Government's role as the contracting authority over the IANA functions, as well as its approval authority over all DNS root zone changes. Thus, the US government no longer has any unique or special authority over this aspect of Internet governance. > > On the jurisdiction question, I have discussed this several times with people in India and Brazil and think I understand pretty well what the concern is and would propose this: > > Q: As the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged, and the PTI will also be incorporated in the US, does this mean there is effectively no change to the role of the US Government? > > A: No. As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. While ICANN and PTI are still jurisdictionally based in California, its policies, bylaws and governance practices will be shaped by its board members, community accountability mechanisms, supporting organizations, and advisory committees. These entities which are composed of people and organizations from all over the world. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn >> St.Amour >> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:58 PM >> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> >> Here for your review... possible additional FAQ questions. >> >> Look forward to your comments/edits. Will also post on Dropbox under >> "FAQ". >> >> Best, >> Lynn > From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Aug 12 14:55:46 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:55:46 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comments received Message-ID: <02ef01d0d50e$fb2308a0$f16919e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Since the last update (last Weds) we have received 5 more public comments, bringing the total to 14. These are publicly archived here: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal- public-archive-of-submitted-comments/. Each submission, whether received via the web form or via the public-comments at ianacg.org email, is viewable and can be downloaded in a pdf format from the archive linked above. We have received one French submission that used the English web form. The translated versions of the web form (downloadable and web-based) are now available on the public comments page https://comments.ianacg.org. Translations of other documents, including the transition proposal (final format), are forthcoming. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Wed Aug 12 15:27:38 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:27:38 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B03C4E@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> On the first question below, while I prefer the approach of Milton's response, I do have a concern. I actually think that the PTI budget will need to be agreed each year and ICANN will be held to pay the required budget. So I do not think that (except in the first year, perhaps) the funding level will be specified in the contract, but rather the commitment to fund the PTI's agreed budget is in place. Looking at the CWG's proposal (paragraph 163 on page 32 of their final draft) is clear about this, "that PTI should develop and annually update a four-year strategic plan, which should outline strategic priorities, while PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed by the ICANN community. A fully approved budget should be developed on an annual basis." So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be specified in this contract." Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means? Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 12 August 2015 14:19 To: Lynn St.Amour; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Lynn I have problems with some of your proposed answers. On payment for PTI you wrote: A: The PTI will be funded just as it is today. ICANN currently performs the IANA functions, but collects no specific fees for them. ICANN does collect fees from ICANN-accredited gTLD registries and registrars, and some ccTLD registries, which in turn funds the IANA functions. This is not correct, or at least I hope it is not. I would suggest: A: PTI and ICANN will have a contract, and the funding level for PTI's operations will be specified in this contract. This will make the costs associated with supporting IANA functions more open and explicit. ICANN will support these costs out of its budget, which is based on its collection of fees from contracted registries and registrars who use the IANA functions, and from some ccTLD registries and Regional Internet Registries that make contributions to ICANN. On the US government influence question, your answer really ducks the question imho and we can ill afford to be perceived as ducking this sensitive issue. You wrote: A: There is not "a single" transfer or "a single" transition of the IANA Stewardship responsibility (that is, the oversight role). That responsibility occurs across the three Operating Communities where it has largely lived anyway. Those varied processes (and the OC's themselves) are open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder, and they follow consensus policies developed by their communities. It is these characteristics and the very global participation that will help ensure fairness. I frankly don't see how that answers the question. I would suggest: A: The IANA transition completely eliminates the US Government's role as the contracting authority over the IANA functions, as well as its approval authority over all DNS root zone changes. Thus, the US government no longer has any unique or special authority over this aspect of Internet governance. On the jurisdiction question, I have discussed this several times with people in India and Brazil and think I understand pretty well what the concern is and would propose this: Q: As the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged, and the PTI will also be incorporated in the US, does this mean there is effectively no change to the role of the US Government? A: No. As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. While ICANN and PTI are still jurisdictionally based in California, its policies, bylaws and governance practices will be shaped by its board members, community accountability mechanisms, supporting organizations, and advisory committees. These entities which are composed of people and organizations from all over the world. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:58 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Here for your review... possible additional FAQ questions. > > Look forward to your comments/edits. Will also post on Dropbox under > "FAQ". > > Best, > Lynn _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Aug 12 16:26:51 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:26:51 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> Message-ID: I really agree with Russ on this one. Let's pay attention to substance, and to the number of people who are making the same point. And we shouldn't change anything on the form now. --MM -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:02 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Russ Mundy; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments I've had a concern about this discussion that I wasn't sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it's worth): As an individual ICG member, I really don't want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. If we somehow want to give more "weight" to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? Since we've already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don't currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa's suggestion below is the best one I've seen. Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. Russ M On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I'm not sure if Daniel's follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: > > Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): > > Thoughts? > > Alissa > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > >> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >> >> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >> >> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >> >> >> Martin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >> Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >> To: Daniel Karrenberg >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >> >> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated >>> as coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >> >> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >> >> Alissa >> >>> >>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could >>>> be completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation >>>> field will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>> >>>> * Individual >>>> >>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>> >>>> * Organisation input >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>> this evening. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Aug 12 16:29:14 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:29:14 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I noticed some typos in my hastily banged out amendment to Lynn's jurisdiction answer. Here it is again with the typos ficed: A: No. As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. While ICANN and PTI are still jurisdictionally based in California, their policies, bylaws and governance practices will be shaped by its board members, community accountability mechanisms, supporting organizations, and advisory committees. These entities are composed of people and organizations from all over the world. -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:19 AM To: Lynn St.Amour; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Lynn I have problems with some of your proposed answers. On payment for PTI you wrote: A: The PTI will be funded just as it is today. ICANN currently performs the IANA functions, but collects no specific fees for them. ICANN does collect fees from ICANN-accredited gTLD registries and registrars, and some ccTLD registries, which in turn funds the IANA functions. This is not correct, or at least I hope it is not. I would suggest: A: PTI and ICANN will have a contract, and the funding level for PTI's operations will be specified in this contract. This will make the costs associated with supporting IANA functions more open and explicit. ICANN will support these costs out of its budget, which is based on its collection of fees from contracted registries and registrars who use the IANA functions, and from some ccTLD registries and Regional Internet Registries that make contributions to ICANN. On the US government influence question, your answer really ducks the question imho and we can ill afford to be perceived as ducking this sensitive issue. You wrote: A: There is not "a single" transfer or "a single" transition of the IANA Stewardship responsibility (that is, the oversight role). That responsibility occurs across the three Operating Communities where it has largely lived anyway. Those varied processes (and the OC's themselves) are open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder, and they follow consensus policies developed by their communities. It is these characteristics and the very global participation that will help ensure fairness. I frankly don't see how that answers the question. I would suggest: A: The IANA transition completely eliminates the US Government's role as the contracting authority over the IANA functions, as well as its approval authority over all DNS root zone changes. Thus, the US government no longer has any unique or special authority over this aspect of Internet governance. On the jurisdiction question, I have discussed this several times with people in India and Brazil and think I understand pretty well what the concern is and would propose this: Q: As the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged, and the PTI will also be incorporated in the US, does this mean there is effectively no change to the role of the US Government? A: No. As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. While ICANN and PTI are still jurisdictionally based in California, its policies, bylaws and governance practices will be shaped by its board members, community accountability mechanisms, supporting organizations, and advisory committees. These entities which are composed of people and organizations from all over the world. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:58 PM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Here for your review... possible additional FAQ questions. > > Look forward to your comments/edits. Will also post on Dropbox under > "FAQ". > > Best, > Lynn _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Aug 12 16:33:49 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:33:49 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B03C4E@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B03C4E@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- > So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a > contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be > specified in this contract." Martin's amendments to the wording here are welcome and fine with me: > Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what > "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means? Heh. We all use the IANA functions, Martin, some of us just use them more indirectly than others. Seriously, though, one could just delete "who use the IANA functions" from my proposed change. From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Aug 12 16:50:21 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:50:21 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] New tweets from the ICG Message-ID: <036901d0d51e$fb27d050$f17770f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The ICG has tweeted reminders for people to provide comments to the transition proposal: EN: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/631505479903113218 AR: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/631505973983612928 ES: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/631505763173675009 FR: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/631505674032144384 PT: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/631506243371139072 RU: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/631506040161468416 ZH: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/631506171648569344 Please share and broadcast to your communities - thank you! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Wed Aug 12 20:08:27 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:08:27 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to Richard Hill In-Reply-To: References: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <8B341481-6E62-48E1-8512-544164C6DB90@tislabs.com> Alissa, This response certainly sounds reasonable to me. I did note a couple of grammatical/typo type nits that I’ve noted inline. Russ M On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > All, > > Here is a proposed response to this comment. What do you think? > > Alissa > > ---- > > Dear Richard, > > Thank you for submitting your comments to the ICG. We note your view on the process for consensus in CWG Stewardship for the document produced. > The ICG also notes that the CWG Stewardship has taken notice of your view as explained in email from Lise Fuhr that can be found here: . > > The ICG evaluation of how the CWG Stewardship process meets the NTIA requirements is in the ICG document that is out for open consultation as explained here: . > > Regrading the specific question on what is the basis for ICG to evaluate comments addressed to the Regarding > operational communities, please have a look at section 2a in the ICG comments handling process , which says "ICG in its discretion will raise the issues or question to the relevant OC with a request that they provide a timely and appropriate reply." This was exactly what ICG did. > > In general the ICG had the ability at any time to make a statement as long as we fulfil our mandate and has > charter. Furthermore, the original comments posted in the ICG Forum were not addressed to the CWG Stewardship but instead addressed to the ICG, and because of that the ICG did take action. > > Kind Regards, > > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: >> >> 7 August – “Comment on handling of my previous comment on the CWG-Stewardship proposal” from Richard Hill. >> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-August/000003.html >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Aug 12 22:33:26 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:33:26 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B42DD-B3DA-40D6-AE28-0DF49A89DB86@LStAmour.org> <14109cecf238418eba5a19695d3b1708@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <0795211E-6D76-4BCB-8F8E-FEBDA0290673@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B03C4E@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <12BB689D-6C05-4EDF-A789-0EC5D27471C7@LStAmour.org> Thanks much to Joe, Milton, Martin, and Kavouss for their suggestions. I incorporated these as best as possible while trying to maintain an appropriate level of brevity. Kavouss, I would like to link to the sections of text you call out as they are quite detailed and come from the CCWG-Accountability work and not one of the OC proposals directly. Please review the edited text and let me know if it works. Milton, I incorporated your suggestions, and note that many of them focused heavily on USG-ICANN related changes (not surprising given it is a transition :-) ). I believe we should also take advantage of this opportunity to better inform the world of the key roles played in all the OC's, (as this aspect is really not well understood), so I left some of that text in. Look forward to hearing from others as I admit to being pretty wedded to informing on all OC's :-). There is also one question on the role of the PTI in oversight, that would be aided by further review. Also, posted to Dropbox. Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA transition - possible FAQ additions 8-11-2015 v2 .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26356 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- >> So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a >> contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be >> specified in this contract." > > Martin's amendments to the wording here are welcome and fine with me: > >> Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what >> "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means? > > Heh. We all use the IANA functions, Martin, some of us just use them more indirectly than others. Seriously, though, one could just delete "who use the IANA functions" from my proposed change. > From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Aug 13 06:21:28 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:21:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <12BB689D-6C05-4EDF-A789-0EC5D27471C7@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <6096756.99.1439446885980.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Agree with Lynn and others on these improvements. It's good to have provided a link to the CCWG recommendations. Jurisdiction: for a non-US citizen or entity, the distinction between "policy and operational aspects of the IANA functions" and "questions of corporate performance" is correct only to a certain point. It would be like saying that Internet governance is only politics and has no technical aspects, or the other way around. While the Internet is an infrastructure, it can also be seen, and even used, as a political tool. In this sense, it would be fair to recognize that, while unlikely under present circumstances, IN PURELY LEGAL TERMS the PTI construct would remain in the US jurisdiction, which in turn would leave open the possibility that the authorities in Washington might, in some specific cases, wish to weigh upon the operational functions. As a former member of the ICANN Board who took an active part in drafting of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" recommendations, and also in the Board discussions leading to the Affirmation of Commitments, I feel that the degree of clarity I am advocating would best serve the community, but would also contribute to lifting doubts about the motivations for Transition. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Lynn St.Amour" À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Août 2015 00:33:26 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Thanks much to Joe, Milton, Martin, and Kavouss for their suggestions. I incorporated these as best as possible while trying to maintain an appropriate level of brevity. Kavouss, I would like to link to the sections of text you call out as they are quite detailed and come from the CCWG-Accountability work and not one of the OC proposals directly. Please review the edited text and let me know if it works. Milton, I incorporated your suggestions, and note that many of them focused heavily on USG-ICANN related changes (not surprising given it is a transition :-) ). I believe we should also take advantage of this opportunity to better inform the world of the key roles played in all the OC's, (as this aspect is really not well understood), so I left some of that text in. Look forward to hearing from others as I admit to being pretty wedded to informing on all OC's :-). There is also one question on the role of the PTI in oversight, that would be aided by further review. Also, posted to Dropbox. Best, Lynn On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- >> So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a >> contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be >> specified in this contract." > > Martin's amendments to the wording here are welcome and fine with me: > >> Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what >> "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means? > > Heh. We all use the IANA functions, Martin, some of us just use them more indirectly than others. Seriously, though, one could just delete "who use the IANA functions" from my proposed change. > _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 13 10:06:16 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:06:16 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <6096756.99.1439446885980.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <6096756.99.1439446885980.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <55CC6C18.10107@oracle.com> Jean Jacques: The existence of the company in the US provides US legal jurisdiction for legal disputes and questions of law but confers no oversight role, so please explain how it provides an opportunity to "weigh upon operational functions" that are not illegal or the subject of a lawsuit in the jurisdiction? Thanks- Joe On 8/13/2015 2:21 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Agree with Lynn and others on these improvements. It's good to have provided a link to the CCWG recommendations. > > Jurisdiction: for a non-US citizen or entity, the distinction between "policy and operational aspects of the IANA functions" and "questions of corporate performance" is correct only to a certain point. It would be like saying that Internet governance is only politics and has no technical aspects, or the other way around. While the Internet is an infrastructure, it can also be seen, and even used, as a political tool. In this sense, it would be fair to recognize that, while unlikely under present circumstances, IN PURELY LEGAL TERMS the PTI construct would remain in the US jurisdiction, which in turn would leave open the possibility that the authorities in Washington might, in some specific cases, wish to weigh upon the operational functions. > > As a former member of the ICANN Board who took an active part in drafting of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" recommendations, and also in the Board discussions leading to the Affirmation of Commitments, I feel that the degree of clarity I am advocating would best serve the community, but would also contribute to lifting doubts about the motivations for Transition. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Lynn St.Amour" > À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Août 2015 00:33:26 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Thanks much to Joe, Milton, Martin, and Kavouss for their suggestions. I incorporated these as best as possible while trying to maintain an appropriate level of brevity. Kavouss, I would like to link to the sections of text you call out as they are quite detailed and come from the CCWG-Accountability work and not one of the OC proposals directly. Please review the edited text and let me know if it works. > > Milton, I incorporated your suggestions, and note that many of them focused heavily on USG-ICANN related changes (not surprising given it is a transition :-) ). I believe we should also take advantage of this opportunity to better inform the world of the key roles played in all the OC's, (as this aspect is really not well understood), so I left some of that text in. Look forward to hearing from others as I admit to being pretty wedded to informing on all OC's :-). > > There is also one question on the role of the PTI in oversight, that would be aided by further review. > > Also, posted to Dropbox. > > Best, > Lynn > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >>> So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a >>> contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be >>> specified in this contract." >> Martin's amendments to the wording here are welcome and fine with me: >> >>> Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what >>> "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means? >> Heh. We all use the IANA functions, Martin, some of us just use them more indirectly than others. Seriously, though, one could just delete "who use the IANA functions" from my proposed change. >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Aug 13 13:12:39 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:12:39 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <6096756.99.1439446885980.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <12BB689D-6C05-4EDF-A789-0EC5D27471C7@LStAmour.org> <6096756.99.1439446885980.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: Jean-Jacques: > -----Original Message----- > way around. While the Internet is an infrastructure, it can also be seen, and > even used, as a political tool. In this sense, it would be fair to recognize that, > while unlikely under present circumstances, IN PURELY LEGAL TERMS the PTI > construct would remain in the US jurisdiction, which in turn would leave open > the possibility that the authorities in Washington might, in some specific > cases, wish to weigh upon the operational functions. I agree that we need to avoid being Pollyana-ish about these answers, we need to tell it like it is and most importantly, respond to the questions that people are actually asking. So here, J-J has put his finger on the question that most people who ask this question about jurisdiction actually have, namely could Washington interfere with PTI (or ICANN) because of its presence in US jurisdiction? The answer is complex, I am not sure how to address this concern simply. Point 1 is that it our current language, ableit a bit awkward, is correct, California law simply creates a corporation, and the direction and policies and governance of that corporation are up to the board, SOs, ACs and member. Point 2: any interference by the U.S. federal government would require a complicated and difficult legislative process to create new authority that it currently doesn't have. Such a move would encounter a lot of political (and perhaps even legal) resistance. Point 3 is that it has to be incorporated somewhere, which means that regardless of jurisdiction, some government is going to be in a position to at least try to interfere, and in countries with less stable rule of law this would be easier than in the U.S. Point 4 is that political interference, from Washington or anywhere else, is most likely to target policy rather than "operational functions" and thus separating PTI from ICANN is a Good Thing for that reason. Any attempt to dictate what PTI can do by Washington could motivate a change of IANA functions operator, as the IFR process and people are not controlled by the US. From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Aug 13 19:30:28 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:30:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <55CC6C18.10107@oracle.com> Message-ID: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Hello Joe, thanks for pointing out a problem posed by the wording ("weigh upon the operational functions"). I wanted to convey to ICG colleagues remarks heard over the years in various regions. Beyond the acknowledgment that the Internet was developed mainly by and in the US, expectations arose about a gradual "internationalization". This is the context in which I mentioned an "unlikely" hypothesis, not of direct interference in operational matters, but as a consequence of possible administrative, legal or political problems, which might then have an indirect impact on operations. By the way, I was making a comment, not proposing drafting. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "joseph alhadeff" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Août 2015 12:06:16 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Jean Jacques: The existence of the company in the US provides US legal jurisdiction for legal disputes and questions of law but confers no oversight role, so please explain how it provides an opportunity to "weigh upon operational functions" that are not illegal or the subject of a lawsuit in the jurisdiction? Thanks- Joe On 8/13/2015 2:21 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Agree with Lynn and others on these improvements. It's good to have provided a link to the CCWG recommendations. > > Jurisdiction: for a non-US citizen or entity, the distinction between "policy and operational aspects of the IANA functions" and "questions of corporate performance" is correct only to a certain point. It would be like saying that Internet governance is only politics and has no technical aspects, or the other way around. While the Internet is an infrastructure, it can also be seen, and even used, as a political tool. In this sense, it would be fair to recognize that, while unlikely under present circumstances, IN PURELY LEGAL TERMS the PTI construct would remain in the US jurisdiction, which in turn would leave open the possibility that the authorities in Washington might, in some specific cases, wish to weigh upon the operational functions. > > As a former member of the ICANN Board who took an active part in drafting of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" recommendations, and also in the Board discussions leading to the Affirmation of Commitments, I feel that the degree of clarity I am advocating would best serve the community, but would also contribute to lifting doubts about the motivations for Transition. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Lynn St.Amour" > À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Août 2015 00:33:26 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Thanks much to Joe, Milton, Martin, and Kavouss for their suggestions. I incorporated these as best as possible while trying to maintain an appropriate level of brevity. Kavouss, I would like to link to the sections of text you call out as they are quite detailed and come from the CCWG-Accountability work and not one of the OC proposals directly. Please review the edited text and let me know if it works. > > Milton, I incorporated your suggestions, and note that many of them focused heavily on USG-ICANN related changes (not surprising given it is a transition :-) ). I believe we should also take advantage of this opportunity to better inform the world of the key roles played in all the OC's, (as this aspect is really not well understood), so I left some of that text in. Look forward to hearing from others as I admit to being pretty wedded to informing on all OC's :-). > > There is also one question on the role of the PTI in oversight, that would be aided by further review. > > Also, posted to Dropbox. > > Best, > Lynn > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >>> So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a >>> contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be >>> specified in this contract." >> Martin's amendments to the wording here are welcome and fine with me: >> >>> Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what >>> "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means? >> Heh. We all use the IANA functions, Martin, some of us just use them more indirectly than others. Seriously, though, one could just delete "who use the IANA functions" from my proposed change. >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 14 17:15:24 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: Dear ICG members, Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the comment period is well underway. Also posted to Dropbox Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA transition - possible FAQ additions 8-11-2015 v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23742 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Aug 13, 2015, at 3:30 PM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" wrote: > Hello Joe, > > thanks for pointing out a problem posed by the wording ("weigh upon the operational functions"). > > I wanted to convey to ICG colleagues remarks heard over the years in various regions. Beyond the acknowledgment that the Internet was developed mainly by and in the US, expectations arose about a gradual "internationalization". > > This is the context in which I mentioned an "unlikely" hypothesis, not of direct interference in operational matters, but as a consequence of possible administrative, legal or political problems, which might then have an indirect impact on operations. > > By the way, I was making a comment, not proposing drafting. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "joseph alhadeff" > À: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Août 2015 12:06:16 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Jean Jacques: > > The existence of the company in the US provides US legal jurisdiction > for legal disputes and questions of law but confers no oversight role, > so please explain how it provides an opportunity to "weigh upon > operational functions" that are not illegal or the subject of a lawsuit > in the jurisdiction? > > Thanks- > > Joe > > On 8/13/2015 2:21 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> Agree with Lynn and others on these improvements. It's good to have provided a link to the CCWG recommendations. >> >> Jurisdiction: for a non-US citizen or entity, the distinction between "policy and operational aspects of the IANA functions" and "questions of corporate performance" is correct only to a certain point. It would be like saying that Internet governance is only politics and has no technical aspects, or the other way around. While the Internet is an infrastructure, it can also be seen, and even used, as a political tool. In this sense, it would be fair to recognize that, while unlikely under present circumstances, IN PURELY LEGAL TERMS the PTI construct would remain in the US jurisdiction, which in turn would leave open the possibility that the authorities in Washington might, in some specific cases, wish to weigh upon the operational functions. >> >> As a former member of the ICANN Board who took an active part in drafting of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" recommendations, and also in the Board discussions leading to the Affirmation of Commitments, I feel that the degree of clarity I am advocating would best serve the community, but would also contribute to lifting doubts about the motivations for Transition. >> >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Lynn St.Amour" >> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >> Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Août 2015 00:33:26 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> >> Thanks much to Joe, Milton, Martin, and Kavouss for their suggestions. I incorporated these as best as possible while trying to maintain an appropriate level of brevity. Kavouss, I would like to link to the sections of text you call out as they are quite detailed and come from the CCWG-Accountability work and not one of the OC proposals directly. Please review the edited text and let me know if it works. >> >> Milton, I incorporated your suggestions, and note that many of them focused heavily on USG-ICANN related changes (not surprising given it is a transition :-) ). I believe we should also take advantage of this opportunity to better inform the world of the key roles played in all the OC's, (as this aspect is really not well understood), so I left some of that text in. Look forward to hearing from others as I admit to being pretty wedded to informing on all OC's :-). >> >> There is also one question on the role of the PTI in oversight, that would be aided by further review. >> >> Also, posted to Dropbox. >> >> Best, >> Lynn >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a >>>> contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be >>>> specified in this contract." >>> Martin's amendments to the wording here are welcome and fine with me: >>> >>>> Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what >>>> "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means? >>> Heh. We all use the IANA functions, Martin, some of us just use them more indirectly than others. Seriously, though, one could just delete "who use the IANA functions" from my proposed change. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Aug 14 19:43:25 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:43:25 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: Looks OK to me. If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn > St.Amour > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > Importance: High > > Dear ICG members, > > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the attached > document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one > remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI > different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the > naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and > clarify that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include all the OC > proposals. > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I will work > with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the > comment period is well underway. > > Also posted to Dropbox > > Best, > Lynn From kdrazek at verisign.com Fri Aug 14 19:49:41 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:49:41 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> , Message-ID: <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> I support Milton's proposed edit. Regards, Keith Drazek Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Looks OK to me. > If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: > > Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. > > Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn >> St.Amour >> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> Importance: High >> >> Dear ICG members, >> >> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the attached >> document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one >> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI >> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the >> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and >> clarify that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include all the OC >> proposals. >> >> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I will work >> with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. >> >> Also posted to Dropbox >> >> Best, >> Lynn > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 14 19:59:16 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: Thank you Milton. Will make the additional edit. Lynn On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:43 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: > Looks OK to me. > If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: > > Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. > > Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn >> St.Amour >> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> Importance: High >> >> Dear ICG members, >> >> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the attached >> document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one >> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI >> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the >> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and >> clarify that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include all the OC >> proposals. >> >> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I will work >> with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the >> comment period is well underway. >> >> Also posted to Dropbox >> >> Best, >> Lynn > From Lynn at LStAmour.org Sat Aug 15 02:02:30 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> , <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> Message-ID: <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> Thanks Keith, any comments on the other FAQ? Lynn On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > I support Milton's proposed edit. > > Regards, > Keith Drazek > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Looks OK to me. >> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: >> >> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. >> >> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn >>> St.Amour >>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>> Importance: High >>> >>> Dear ICG members, >>> >>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the attached >>> document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one >>> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI >>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the >>> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and >>> clarify that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include all the OC >>> proposals. >>> >>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I will work >>> with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. >>> >>> Also posted to Dropbox >>> >>> Best, >>> Lynn >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sat Aug 15 09:19:21 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:19:21 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> , <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this .. Apologies for not being able to participate earlier .. I'm fine with this version .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Thanks Keith, any comments on the other FAQ? Lynn On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > I support Milton's proposed edit. > > Regards, > Keith Drazek > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Looks OK to me. >> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: >> >> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. >> >> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>> Of Lynn St.Amour >>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>> Importance: High >>> >>> Dear ICG members, >>> >>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one >>> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI >>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the >>> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few >>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various >>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. >>> >>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I >>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. >>> >>> Also posted to Dropbox >>> >>> Best, >>> Lynn >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Aug 15 12:39:11 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 08:39:11 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> Agree. Sent from my iPad > On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > > Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this .. > Apologies for not being able to participate earlier .. > I'm fine with this version .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM > To: Drazek, Keith > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Thanks Keith, > > any comments on the other FAQ? > > Lynn > > >> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >> >> I support Milton's proposed edit. >> >> Regards, >> Keith Drazek >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> Looks OK to me. >>> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: >>> >>> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. >>> >>> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Lynn St.Amour >>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM >>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>>> Importance: High >>>> >>>> Dear ICG members, >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one >>>> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI >>>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the >>>> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few >>>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various >>>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. >>>> >>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I >>>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. >>>> >>>> Also posted to Dropbox >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Lynn >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Sat Aug 15 15:32:14 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:32:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> Dear All Sorry to be late The answer to the question relating to PTI to be found on the first proposal of CWG as was put yo public comment. Nothing more and nothing less Kavousd Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Aug 2015, at 14:39, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > > Agree. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: >> >> Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this .. >> Apologies for not being able to participate earlier .. >> I'm fine with this version .. >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM >> To: Drazek, Keith >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> >> Thanks Keith, >> >> any comments on the other FAQ? >> >> Lynn >> >> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >>> >>> I support Milton's proposed edit. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Keith Drazek >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>> Looks OK to me. >>>> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: >>>> >>>> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. >>>> >>>> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>>> Of Lynn St.Amour >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>>>> Importance: High >>>>> >>>>> Dear ICG members, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one >>>>> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI >>>>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the >>>>> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few >>>>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various >>>>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. >>>>> >>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I >>>>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. >>>>> >>>>> Also posted to Dropbox >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Sat Aug 15 17:38:57 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:38:57 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) In-Reply-To: <5F4B8C20-8BDD-4F0A-A255-27E41E1F51A4@icann.org> References: <5F4B8C20-8BDD-4F0A-A255-27E41E1F51A4@icann.org> Message-ID: Here is a statement from ICANN. Looks to me like they are being cooperative and will help to avoid a problem. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker The following is our formal statement on the IANA IPR. We will post this on our website ASAP. Steve Crocker On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) We support the ICG proposal and the underlying proposals from CWG, CRISP and IANAPLAN. The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the IPR component of the proposal. The ICANN Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator must have operational control over the IANA.ORG domain. During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational control of the IANA.ORG domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANA Functions Operator. If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing anyone in the community. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship From kdrazek at verisign.com Sat Aug 15 17:55:37 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) In-Reply-To: References: <5F4B8C20-8BDD-4F0A-A255-27E41E1F51A4@icann.org>, Message-ID: Very good news! Best, Keith Drazek On Aug 15, 2015, at 7:39 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Here is a statement from ICANN. Looks to me like they are being cooperative and will help to avoid a problem. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker The following is our formal statement on the IANA IPR. We will post this on our website ASAP. Steve Crocker On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) We support the ICG proposal and the underlying proposals from CWG, CRISP and IANAPLAN. The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the IPR component of the proposal. The ICANN Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator must have operational control over the http://IANA.ORG domain. During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational control of the http://IANA.ORG domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANA Functions Operator. If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing anyone in the community. _______________________________________________ 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 mbashir at mbash.net Sat Aug 15 20:13:50 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:13:50 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) In-Reply-To: References: <5F4B8C20-8BDD-4F0A-A255-27E41E1F51A4@icann.org> Message-ID: <627E8A6D-6A9C-458C-95D4-D6AA7218059E@mbash.net> Good news indeed, The board bring practical. I hope this could help/facilitate CWG discussion to reach a position on the issue. Kind Regards, Mohamed > On 15 Aug 2015, at 20:55, Drazek, Keith wrote: > > Very good news! > > Best, > Keith Drazek > > On Aug 15, 2015, at 7:39 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> Here is a statement from ICANN. Looks to me like they are being cooperative and will help to avoid a problem. >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker >> >> The following is our formal statement on the IANA IPR. We will post this on our website ASAP. >> >> Steve Crocker >> On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors >> >> ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) >> We support the ICG proposal and the underlying proposals from CWG, CRISP and IANAPLAN. The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the IPR component of the proposal. The ICANN Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator must have operational control over the http://IANA.ORG domain. During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational control of the http://IANA.ORG domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANA Functions Operator. If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. >> We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing anyone in the community. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Aug 16 09:43:48 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:43:48 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) In-Reply-To: <627E8A6D-6A9C-458C-95D4-D6AA7218059E@mbash.net> References: <5F4B8C20-8BDD-4F0A-A255-27E41E1F51A4@icann.org> <627E8A6D-6A9C-458C-95D4-D6AA7218059E@mbash.net> Message-ID: <19a6849586b34a2caa3e4848599a66bc@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Thanks Milton for sharing this good and timely statement by the board .. Hope it paves the way for a way forward agreed by the 3 OCs .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mohamed El Bashir Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 10:14 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) Good news indeed, The board bring practical. I hope this could help/facilitate CWG discussion to reach a position on the issue. Kind Regards, Mohamed On 15 Aug 2015, at 20:55, Drazek, Keith > wrote: Very good news! Best, Keith Drazek On Aug 15, 2015, at 7:39 PM, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Here is a statement from ICANN. Looks to me like they are being cooperative and will help to avoid a problem. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker The following is our formal statement on the IANA IPR. We will post this on our website ASAP. Steve Crocker On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) We support the ICG proposal and the underlying proposals from CWG, CRISP and IANAPLAN. The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the IPR component of the proposal. The ICANN Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator must have operational control over the http://IANA.ORG domain. During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational control of the http://IANA.ORG domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANA Functions Operator. If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing anyone in the community. _______________________________________________ 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 housley at vigilsec.com Sun Aug 16 13:32:26 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:32:26 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FWD: ICANN Announcement about IANA IPR In-Reply-To: References: <20150813035158.GA966@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4B4733E0-CC63-4F4A-8A35-A7BEB96D7D3F@isoc.org> <20150813152634.GD966@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <3DF2083A-98C2-4972-B150-7313E726F6D4@isoc.org> <76C21662-C606-4FBF-B490-D8AAAA65E644@isoc.org> <20150813172941.GH966@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <748B5D70-5259-494A-9FAD-32C18CE8DDF5@netnod.se> Message-ID: <8BAFC324-8B79-4257-869A-B9B466AD3502@vigilsec.com> Please see this statement from Steve Crocker about the iana.org domain name and the IANA trademark. Russ > From: Steve Crocker > Subject: [Ianaplan] ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) > Date: August 15, 2015 at 12:37:29 PM GMT-4 > To: ianaplan at ietf.org, cwg-stewardship at icann.org, ianaxfer at nro.net > Cc: Steve Crocker > > The following is our formal statement on the IANA IPR. We will post this on our website ASAP. > > > Steve Crocker > On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors > > > ICANN Statement re IANA Intellectual Property (IPR) > > We support the ICG proposal and the underlying proposals from CWG, CRISP and IANAPLAN. The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the IPR component of the proposal. The ICANN Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator must have operational control over the IANA.ORG domain. During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational control of the IANA.ORG domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANA Functions Operator. If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. > > We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing anyone in the community. From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Aug 16 14:23:14 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Lynn Tjhhank you very much for the efforts . However, the last sentence Quote The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator. 2015-08-15 17:32 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear All > Sorry to be late > The answer to the question relating to PTI to be found on the first > proposal of CWG as was put yo public comment. > Nothing more and nothing less > Kavousd > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 15 Aug 2015, at 14:39, Joseph Alhadeff > wrote: > > > > Agree. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > >> > >> Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this .. > >> Apologies for not being able to participate earlier .. > >> I'm fine with this version .. > >> > >> Kind Regards > >> --Manal > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Lynn St.Amour > >> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM > >> To: Drazek, Keith > >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > >> > >> Thanks Keith, > >> > >> any comments on the other FAQ? > >> > >> Lynn > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" > wrote: > >>> > >>> I support Milton's proposed edit. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Keith Drazek > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L < > milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Looks OK to me. > >>>> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th > question as follows: > >>>> > >>>> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone > change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. > >>>> > >>>> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root > zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the > transition is complete. > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf > >>>>> Of Lynn St.Amour > >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM > >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > >>>>> Importance: High > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear ICG members, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > >>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there > is only one > >>>>> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How > is PTI > >>>>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the > >>>>> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few > >>>>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various > >>>>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. > >>>>> > >>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I > >>>>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very > soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also posted to Dropbox > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Lynn > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 Sun Aug 16 14:29:45 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:29:45 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Lynn Tjhhank you very much for the efforts . However, the last sentence Quote *" The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." * Unquote This does not reflect the reality. Infact there are other instants ( entities ) to take that responsibilty and not three community as such. Pls once again either take the text from the final proposal from CWG REGARDING THE pti, IFO, CSC AND IPR OR DELETE THAT PART . iT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ESTABLISH A NEW RESPSPONSIBILTY FOR 3OCs , in particular, NUMBERS Protocol& Parameter.. Moreover, it is oputside the ICG responsibiléity to make such statement. I have not read the rest of the doc. and may come back,should I find some thing to clarify Regards Kavouss p 2015-08-16 16:23 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Lynn > Tjhhank you very much for the efforts . > However, the last sentence > Quote > > The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the > performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to > ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including > choosing/changing their IANA functions operator. > > 2015-08-15 17:32 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > >> Dear All >> Sorry to be late >> The answer to the question relating to PTI to be found on the first >> proposal of CWG as was put yo public comment. >> Nothing more and nothing less >> Kavousd >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On 15 Aug 2015, at 14:39, Joseph Alhadeff >> wrote: >> > >> > Agree. >> > >> > Sent from my iPad >> > >> >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: >> >> >> >> Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this .. >> >> Apologies for not being able to participate earlier .. >> >> I'm fine with this version .. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> >> --Manal >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >> Of Lynn St.Amour >> >> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM >> >> To: Drazek, Keith >> >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> >> >> >> Thanks Keith, >> >> >> >> any comments on the other FAQ? >> >> >> >> Lynn >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I support Milton's proposed edit. >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Keith Drazek >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L < >> milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Looks OK to me. >> >>>> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th >> question as follows: >> >>>> >> >>>> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone >> change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. >> >>>> >> >>>> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have >> root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN >> when the transition is complete. >> >>>> >> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >> >>>>> Of Lynn St.Amour >> >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM >> >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> >>>>> Importance: High >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Dear ICG members, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >> >>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there >> is only one >> >>>>> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: >> "How is PTI >> >>>>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the >> >>>>> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few >> >>>>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various >> >>>>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I >> >>>>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very >> soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Also posted to Dropbox >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best, >> >>>>> Lynn >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> 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 pwilson at apnic.net Mon Aug 17 03:49:06 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:49:06 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to Richard Hill In-Reply-To: <8B341481-6E62-48E1-8512-544164C6DB90@tislabs.com> References: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> <8B341481-6E62-48E1-8512-544164C6DB90@tislabs.com> Message-ID: +1 Good response. On 13 Aug 2015, at 6:08, Russ Mundy wrote: > Alissa, > > This response certainly sounds reasonable to me. I did note a couple > of grammatical/typo type nits that I’ve noted inline. > > Russ M > > On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> All, >> >> Here is a proposed response to this comment. What do you think? >> >> Alissa >> >> ---- >> >> Dear Richard, >> >> Thank you for submitting your comments to the ICG. We note your view >> on the process for consensus in CWG Stewardship for the document >> produced. >> The ICG also notes that the CWG Stewardship has taken notice of your >> view as explained in email from Lise Fuhr that can be found here: >> . >> >> The ICG evaluation of how the CWG Stewardship process meets the NTIA >> requirements is in the ICG document that is out for open consultation >> as explained here: >> . >> >> Regrading the specific question on what is the basis for ICG to >> evaluate comments addressed to the > > Regarding > >> operational communities, please have a look at section 2a in the ICG >> comments handling process >> , >> which says "ICG in its discretion will raise the issues or question >> to the relevant OC with a request that they provide a timely and >> appropriate reply." This was exactly what ICG did. >> >> In general the ICG had the ability at any time to make a statement as >> long as we fulfil our mandate and > > has > >> charter. Furthermore, the original comments posted in the ICG Forum >> were not addressed to the CWG Stewardship but instead addressed to >> the ICG, and because of that the ICG did take action. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: >>> >>> 7 August – “Comment on handling of my previous comment on the >>> CWG-Stewardship proposal” from Richard Hill. >>> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-August/000003.html >>> >>> 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From pwilson at apnic.net Mon Aug 17 03:55:31 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:55:31 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> Message-ID: <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. Paul. On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: > I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I > should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): > > As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into > trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization > or individual when considering the comments we receive during our > public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect > of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment > including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. > > If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those > claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from > individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a > bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment > for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the > organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from > an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment > from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the > person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? > > Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference > would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that > everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the > period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that > comments from an organization are more important than comments from > individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring > such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, > I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. > > Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we > receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who > submitted the comment. > > Russ M > > On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this >> list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is >> where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an >> organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that >> organization. We could have the organization field read: >> >> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an >> organization): >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle >> wrote: >> >>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are >>> aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that >>> we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have >>> behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final >>> version that their comments have not been taken into account will be >>> treated as lone voices. >>> >>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and >>> their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in >>> comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't >>> think to note anything about their experience or background in the >>> area). >>> >>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue >>> orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new >>> concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>> Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>> >>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated >>>> as >>>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>> >>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation >>> could we have of a blank organization field? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> >>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could >>>>> be >>>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation >>>>> field >>>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>> >>>>> * Individual >>>>> >>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>> >>>>> * Organisation input >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community >>>>> representative" >>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>> this evening. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 11:30:48 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:30:48 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> Message-ID: Yes I agree with Paul Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:55, Paul Wilson wrote: > > If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. > > That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. > > Paul. > > >> On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: >> >> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): >> >> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. >> >> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? >> >> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. >> >> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. >> >> Russ M >> >>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >>> >>> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>>> >>>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>>> >>>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>>> >>>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>>> >>>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>>>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>>> >>>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Individual >>>>>> >>>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>>> >>>>>> * Organisation input >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>>> this evening. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 17 11:33:47 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:33:47 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> Message-ID: <855A596D-37CA-4A03-8CED-5DA2A3799AE0@gmail.com> Dear All Are we concerned about the "singer" or the "song" Personally I am for the second one Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:55, Paul Wilson wrote: > > If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. > > That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. > > Paul. > > >> On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: >> >> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): >> >> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. >> >> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? >> >> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. >> >> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. >> >> Russ M >> >>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >>> >>> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>>> >>>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>>> >>>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>>> >>>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>>> >>>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>>>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>>> >>>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Individual >>>>>> >>>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>>> >>>>>> * Organisation input >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>>> this evening. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Aug 17 11:37:58 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:37:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <855A596D-37CA-4A03-8CED-5DA2A3799AE0@gmail.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> <855A596D-37CA-4A03-8CED-5DA2A3799AE0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <490B80DC-0D7F-4529-90CF-D71424425235@oracle.com> I think we are concerned about the song in terms of the content of the comments, but correctly identifying the singers will help demonstrate whether there is community consensus... So I guess we need to pay attention to both what is said and who is saying it... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Dear All > Are we concerned about the "singer" or the "song" > Personally I am for the second one > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:55, Paul Wilson wrote: >> >> If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. >> >> That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. >> >> Paul. >> >> >>> On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: >>> >>> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): >>> >>> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. >>> >>> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? >>> >>> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. >>> >>> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. >>> >>> Russ M >>> >>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >>>> >>>> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>> >>>>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>>>> >>>>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>>>> >>>>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>>>>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>>>> >>>>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Daniel >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>>>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>>>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>>>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Individual >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Organisation input >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>>>> this evening. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Mon Aug 17 11:49:14 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:49:14 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> Message-ID: <16ab9d637a9448fcbb5cdeb5e11bd26f@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> I also agree that it's late to change .. But just to share my thoughts, I believe what gives a submission more weight is mainly how convincing the reasoning behind the answer(s) provided is, and at a less priority (or maybe for subjective views) how much that same view is shared by others .. The latter should take into consideration whether the submitted view is that of an individual or represents the view of a sub-set of the community .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 5:56 AM To: Russ Mundy Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. Paul. On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: > I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I > should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): > > As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into > trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization > or individual when considering the comments we receive during our > public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect > of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment > including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. > > If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those > claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from > individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a > bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment > for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the > organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from > an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment > from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the > person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? > > Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference > would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that > everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the > period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that > comments from an organization are more important than comments from > individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring > such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, > I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. > > Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we > receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who > submitted the comment. > > Russ M > > On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, >> but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it >> is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is >> actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could >> have the organization field read: >> >> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an >> organization): >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle >> wrote: >> >>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are >>> aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that >>> we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have >>> behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final >>> version that their comments have not been taken into account will be >>> treated as lone voices. >>> >>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and >>> their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in >>> comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't >>> think to note anything about their experience or background in the >>> area). >>> >>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue >>> orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new >>> concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>> Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>> >>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated >>>> as coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>> >>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation >>> could we have of a blank organization field? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> >>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could >>>>> be completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) >>>>> Or should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation >>>>> field will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>> >>>>> * Individual >>>>> >>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>> >>>>> * Organisation input >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community >>>>> representative" >>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>> this evening. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 17 12:27:00 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:27:00 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <490B80DC-0D7F-4529-90CF-D71424425235@oracle.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> <855A596D-37CA-4A03-8CED-5DA2A3799AE0@gmail.com> <490B80DC-0D7F-4529-90CF-D71424425235@oracle.com> Message-ID: <43D0BF59-375F-4D59-B4C1-5EA9BB521C14@gmail.com> Dear Joe Yes I agree with you in terms of our conditions mentioned in the Charter as you have implicitly outlined. However, comments from individuals,in particular,if such individuals comments objectively shall in no way be undermined vis a vis a community that just comment as results of some sort of biased mobilisations , Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 17 Aug 2015, at 13:37, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > > I think we are concerned about the song in terms of the content of the comments, but correctly identifying the singers will help demonstrate whether there is community consensus... So I guess we need to pay attention to both what is said and who is saying it... > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Dear All >> Are we concerned about the "singer" or the "song" >> Personally I am for the second one >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:55, Paul Wilson wrote: >>> >>> If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. >>> >>> That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. >>> >>> Paul. >>> >>> >>>> On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: >>>> >>>> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): >>>> >>>> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. >>>> >>>> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? >>>> >>>> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. >>>> >>>> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. >>>> >>>> Russ M >>>> >>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >>>>> >>>>> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>>>>> >>>>>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>>>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>>>>>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>>>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>>>>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>>>>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>>>>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Individual >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Organisation input >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>>>>> this evening. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >>> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Aug 17 12:31:01 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:31:01 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <16ab9d637a9448fcbb5cdeb5e11bd26f@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> <16ab9d637a9448fcbb5cdeb5e11bd26f@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: Dear Manal I agree with the first part of uiur comment but not entirely with second part ( shared by others). If the arguments are convincing that convincing and valid argument had a value to be taken into account. Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 17 Aug 2015, at 13:49, Manal Ismail wrote: > > I also agree that it's late to change .. > But just to share my thoughts, I believe what gives a submission more weight is mainly how convincing the reasoning behind the answer(s) provided is, and at a less priority (or maybe for subjective views) how much that same view is shared by others .. The latter should take into consideration whether the submitted view is that of an individual or represents the view of a sub-set of the community .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 5:56 AM > To: Russ Mundy > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments > > If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. > > That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. > > Paul. > > >> On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: >> >> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I >> should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): >> >> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into >> trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization >> or individual when considering the comments we receive during our >> public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect >> of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment >> including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. >> >> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those >> claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from >> individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a >> bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment >> for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the >> organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from >> an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment >> from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the >> person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? >> >> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference >> would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that >> everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the >> period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that >> comments from an organization are more important than comments from >> individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring >> such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, >> I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. >> >> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we >> receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who >> submitted the comment. >> >> Russ M >> >>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, >>> but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it >>> is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is >>> actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could >>> have the organization field read: >>> >>> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an >>> organization): >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle >>> wrote: >>> >>>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are >>>> aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that >>>> we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have >>>> behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final >>>> version that their comments have not been taken into account will be >>>> treated as lone voices. >>>> >>>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and >>>> their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in >>>> comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't >>>> think to note anything about their experience or background in the >>>> area). >>>> >>>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue >>>> orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new >>>> concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Alissa Cooper >>>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>>> >>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated >>>>> as coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>>> >>>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation >>>> could we have of a blank organization field? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could >>>>>> be completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) >>>>>> Or should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation >>>>>> field will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Individual >>>>>> >>>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>>> >>>>>> * Organisation input >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community >>>>>> representative" >>>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>>> this evening. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 17 12:36:47 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:36:47 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <6EB41027-D2D1-4958-8015-AEB16D22ECB9@frobbit.se> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <6EB41027-D2D1-4958-8015-AEB16D22ECB9@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <18B1817C-47B8-4028-AEAC-93B65CE2D4C1@gmail.com> Yes Patrik It is too late to change the procedure. Let us wait and see what is submitted and assess the comments on their merits. Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:11, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > > I think we are in the position that we have launched the open consultation, with a certain set of questions. Changing them will make it difficult to evaluate the response. Did they fetch the instructions before or after we changed them? > > So even if we have discovered a possible "issue" I think we have to face the fact that we are where we are, and simply evaluate the responses given what people write. Including the fact they might have misunderstood what we ask for. > > I.e. regardless of what changes we might think is needed, I will be very conservative to make changes as the consultation is live. > > Patrik > >> On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:01, Russ Mundy wrote: >> >> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): >> >> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. >> >> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? >> >> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. >> >> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. >> >> Russ M >> >>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >>> >>> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>>> >>>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>>> >>>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>>> >>>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>>> >>>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>>>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>>> >>>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Individual >>>>>> >>>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>>> >>>>>> * Organisation input >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>>> this evening. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Mon Aug 17 12:38:02 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:38:02 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> Message-ID: <1E9E1889-551F-4C8D-9248-0332EA4B5B3C@gmail.com> Agree with Russ on the substance of his comments Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:01, Russ Mundy wrote: > > I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): > > As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. > > If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? > > Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. > > Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. > > Russ M > >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >> >> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>> >>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>> >>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>> >>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>> >>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>> >>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as >>>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your >>>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>> >>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> >>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It could be >>>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.) Or >>>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field >>>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>> >>>>> * Individual >>>>> >>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>> >>>>> * Organisation input >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I instinctively >>>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly >>>>> this evening. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Mon Aug 17 16:25:36 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:25:36 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> Hi Kavouss, I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the(ir) IFO (through various community managed oversight mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." Can I ask the secretariat to prepare the other FAQs for posting while we work to close on this one (given the comment period is nearly half over. and we have good agreement on the others). I would suggest we reorder the FAQs a bit to put these questions related to the proposal at the beginning and leave the others which largely address questions about the ICG or the process to the subsequent sections. You could repurpose section VII (make it section I) and edit it to read "About the ICG combined proposal" and under that include questions, 12 and 19, and these new questions. For ease of ICG members, those questions/sections are as follows: Q12: Have the ICG identified any issues after the individual and collective proposals assessment? Section VII. About ICG combined proposal and public comment period Q19. How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? Jennifer, if you need anything else from me, just let me know. We will get the final question to you ASAP. Many thanks to all, Lynn On Aug 16, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Lynn > Tjhhank you very much for the efforts . > However, the last sentence > Quote > > " The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > Unquote > This does not reflect the reality. Infact there are other instants ( entities ) to take that responsibilty and not three community as such. > Pls once again either take the text from the final proposal from CWG REGARDING THE pti, IFO, CSC AND IPR OR DELETE THAT PART . > iT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ESTABLISH A NEW RESPSPONSIBILTY FOR 3OCs , in particular, NUMBERS Protocol& Parameter.. > Moreover, it is oputside the ICG responsibiléity to make such statement. > I have not read the rest of the doc. and may come back,should I find some thing to clarify > Regards > Kavouss > p > > > 2015-08-16 16:23 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Lynn > Tjhhank you very much for the efforts . > However, the last sentence > Quote > > The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator. > > 2015-08-15 17:32 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear All > Sorry to be late > The answer to the question relating to PTI to be found on the first proposal of CWG as was put yo public comment. > Nothing more and nothing less > Kavousd > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 15 Aug 2015, at 14:39, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > > > > Agree. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > >> > >> Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this .. > >> Apologies for not being able to participate earlier .. > >> I'm fine with this version .. > >> > >> Kind Regards > >> --Manal > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > >> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM > >> To: Drazek, Keith > >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > >> > >> Thanks Keith, > >> > >> any comments on the other FAQ? > >> > >> Lynn > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > >>> > >>> I support Milton's proposed edit. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Keith Drazek > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Looks OK to me. > >>>> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: > >>>> > >>>> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. > >>>> > >>>> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf > >>>>> Of Lynn St.Amour > >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM > >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > >>>>> Importance: High > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear ICG members, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > >>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one > >>>>> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI > >>>>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the > >>>>> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few > >>>>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various > >>>>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. > >>>>> > >>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I > >>>>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also posted to Dropbox > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Lynn > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 Mon Aug 17 17:26:06 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:26:06 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <1E9E1889-551F-4C8D-9248-0332EA4B5B3C@gmail.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <1E9E1889-551F-4C8D-9248-0332EA4B5B3C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <488F7A12-1438-496A-9820-8C986B3C210B@cooperw.in> Thanks all, sounds like we have agreement not to change anything. Alissa From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Aug 17 17:37:04 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:37:04 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response from the ICG Message-ID: Dear Richard, This mail is in response to these comments provided on the ICG forum: . Thank you for submitting your comments to the ICG. We note your view on the process for consensus in CWG Stewardship for the document produced. The ICG also notes that the CWG Stewardship has taken notice of your view as explained in email from Lise Fuhr that can be found here: . The ICG evaluation of how the CWG Stewardship process meets the NTIA requirements is in the ICG document that is out for open consultation as explained here: . Regarding the specific question on what is the basis for ICG to evaluate comments addressed to the operational communities, please have a look at section 2a in the ICG comments handling process , which says "ICG in its discretion will raise the issues or question to the relevant OC with a request that they provide a timely and appropriate reply." This was exactly what ICG did. In general the ICG has the ability at any time to make a statement as long as we fulfil our mandate and charter. Furthermore, the original comments posted in the ICG Forum were not addressed to the CWG Stewardship but instead addressed to the ICG, and because of that the ICG did take action. Kind Regards, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 20:32:05 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:32:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to Richard Hill In-Reply-To: References: <003b01d0d0f7$d724b130$856e1390$@icgsec.asia> <8B341481-6E62-48E1-8512-544164C6DB90@tislabs.com> Message-ID: Dear All, I am surprised why everybody seems so satisfied and happy. Richard is a knowledgeable person with strong background in internets issues. He has a doctors in mathematic and had long experience in legal aspects of internet. Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:49, Paul Wilson wrote: > > +1 > > Good response. > >> On 13 Aug 2015, at 6:08, Russ Mundy wrote: >> >> Alissa, >> >> This response certainly sounds reasonable to me. I did note a couple of grammatical/typo type nits that I’ve noted inline. >> >> Russ M >> >>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Here is a proposed response to this comment. What do you think? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> Dear Richard, >>> >>> Thank you for submitting your comments to the ICG. We note your view on the process for consensus in CWG Stewardship for the document produced. >>> The ICG also notes that the CWG Stewardship has taken notice of your view as explained in email from Lise Fuhr that can be found here: . >>> >>> The ICG evaluation of how the CWG Stewardship process meets the NTIA requirements is in the ICG document that is out for open consultation as explained here: . >>> >>> Regrading the specific question on what is the basis for ICG to evaluate comments addressed to the >> >> Regarding >> >>> operational communities, please have a look at section 2a in the ICG comments handling process , which says "ICG in its discretion will raise the issues or question to the relevant OC with a request that they provide a timely and appropriate reply." This was exactly what ICG did. >>> >>> In general the ICG had the ability at any time to make a statement as long as we fulfil our mandate and >> >> has >> >>> charter. Furthermore, the original comments posted in the ICG Forum were not addressed to the CWG Stewardship but instead addressed to the ICG, and because of that the ICG did take action. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today: >>>> >>>> 7 August – “Comment on handling of my previous comment on the CWG-Stewardship proposal” from Richard Hill. >>>> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-August/000003.html >>>> >>>> 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Aug 18 01:14:13 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:14:13 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Update from NTIA Message-ID: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition Highlights: 1-year contract extension to September 30, 2016 Link to RZM proposal from VeriSign and ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Tue Aug 18 03:26:25 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:26:25 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Observers in LA? Message-ID: <0B82B69C-6DFD-4559-937D-507F1DB23C32@apnic.net> Dear Chairs and Secretariat. Can I confirm that there will be space for on-site observers at the ICG meeting in LA? In case of space restrictions, is there a need for a registration process for observers? thanks Paul ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From paf at frobbit.se Tue Aug 18 05:18:46 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Observers in LA? In-Reply-To: <0B82B69C-6DFD-4559-937D-507F1DB23C32@apnic.net> References: <0B82B69C-6DFD-4559-937D-507F1DB23C32@apnic.net> Message-ID: Paul, That is correct. There will be space for observers. No need for registration as the number of seats will be larger than earlier meetings, which implies I am not worried there will not be enough seats. Patrik On 18 Aug 2015, at 5:26, Paul Wilson wrote: > Dear Chairs and Secretariat. > > Can I confirm that there will be space for on-site observers at the ICG meeting in LA? > > In case of space restrictions, is there a need for a registration process for observers? > > thanks > > Paul > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > 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 housley at vigilsec.com Tue Aug 18 10:46:49 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:46:49 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] WSJ says NTIA renews ICANN contract through Sept 2016 Message-ID: <058FD890-ACCF-41F2-87F7-41867E0A15B5@vigilsec.com> The Wall Street Journal reports that the NTIA has renewed the existing IANA Functions contract through September 2016, with the option of three additional years. http://on.wsj.com/1WAfp7w Russ From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Tue Aug 18 13:43:34 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:43:34 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Observers in LA? In-Reply-To: References: <0B82B69C-6DFD-4559-937D-507F1DB23C32@apnic.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > That is correct. There will be space for observers. No need for registration as > the number of seats will be larger than earlier meetings, which implies I am > not worried there will not be enough seats. What, you don't think all the Hollywood stars will turn out for this? From paf at frobbit.se Tue Aug 18 14:03:14 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Observers in LA? In-Reply-To: References: <0B82B69C-6DFD-4559-937D-507F1DB23C32@apnic.net> Message-ID: <98C65ACE-532A-4362-8C44-A178C2BAD44D@frobbit.se> On 18 Aug 2015, at 15:43, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > -----Original Message----- >> That is correct. There will be space for observers. No need for registration as >> the number of seats will be larger than earlier meetings, which implies I am >> not worried there will not be enough seats. > > > What, you don't think all the Hollywood stars will turn out for this? If we get hundreds of thousands of people that want to watch us discuss whatever we are to discuss...then I see that as a positive thing :-) 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 housley at vigilsec.com Wed Aug 19 17:25:17 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:25:17 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> Lynn: > The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the(ir) IFO (through various community managed oversight mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." This looks fine to me. The protocol parameters community has an SLA, and the IANA Department publishes the measurements against that SLA every other month. The numbers community is negotiating a similar SLA, and that language for the SLA is out for comment right now . Russ From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 20:46:47 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:46:47 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: Dear Lynn I do not know from where you have in ferred that "*The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" * Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. We should not invent new ideas. However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC. The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text. Regards Kavouss 2015-08-19 19:25 GMT+02:00 Russ Housley : > Lynn: > > > The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of > the(ir) IFO (through various community managed oversight mechanisms). They > will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought > back into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all > 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear > in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions > operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all > 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help > clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested > some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I > understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > > > Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are > required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, > including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions > are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, > including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF > IANA FUNCTIONS." > > This looks fine to me. The protocol parameters community has an SLA, and > the IANA Department publishes the measurements against that SLA every other > month. The numbers community is negotiating a similar SLA, and that > language for the SLA is out for comment right now < > https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-the-second-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services > >. > > Russ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Aug 19 21:02:49 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:02:49 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: Kavouss: I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM To: Russ Housley Cc: ICG Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Dear Lynn I do not know from where you have in ferred that "The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. We should not invent new ideas. However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC. The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text. Regards Kavouss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 21:24:42 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: > I sent. You the full text Kavouss From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 21:31:06 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:31:06 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <48C871AC-657F-40B7-8C35-1F225BC3F678@gmail.com> Dear Milton Good to hear from you again Yes but other OCs do not have any mandates monitor / oversight the activities of IFO Regards Kaviyss Sent from my iPhone > On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Kavouss: > I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community. > > --MM > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM > To: Russ Housley > Cc: ICG Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Dear Lynn > I do not know from where you have in ferred that "The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" > Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. > We should not invent new ideas. > However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC. > The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text. > Regards > Kavouss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 20 08:41:58 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:41:58 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <48C871AC-657F-40B7-8C35-1F225BC3F678@gmail.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> <48C871AC-657F-40B7-8C35-1F225BC3F678@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B0F744@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Hi Kavouss, I’m trying to catch up following a long weekend away, so I might be missing a bit in this. However, it does seem to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the IFO whether directly or indirectly. Names: the CSC monitors the PTI directly and can seek to resolve issues with PTI or with the ICANN Board or, if this fails to bring improvements, escalate for a decision on launching an IANA Functions Review. Numbers: their relationship is with ICANN and is contractual. Paragraphs 2075-2077 (contract), 2085-2088 (SLA) and 2089 (SLA principles, which includes review of the IANA operations, and failure to perform). Protocol Parameters: according to paragraph 3063 (principles) there are requirements for openness, transparency, and accountability; reference to Internet community agreements; a requirement for “capable service;” and IAB responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the operator. Together it seems to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the activities of the IFO. What are we/am I missing? Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 19 August 2015 22:31 To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: ICG Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Dear Milton Good to hear from you again Yes but other OCs do not have any mandates monitor / oversight the activities of IFO Regards Kaviyss Sent from my iPhone On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:02, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Kavouss: I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM To: Russ Housley Cc: ICG Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Dear Lynn I do not know from where you have in ferred that "The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. We should not invent new ideas. However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC. The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text. Regards Kavouss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 09:23:21 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:23:21 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B0F744@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> <48C871AC-657F-40B7-8C35-1F225BC3F678@gmail.com> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B0F744@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <2301C889-4838-48E5-8414-C0D96397CA4A@gmail.com> Daar Martin Welcome back to the discussion Thank you for yr comprehensive comments. However,there is considerable difference between the Name Community and the two other communities. The responsibility if the name community would be reflected in the revised Bylaws whereas the task of the two other communities are addressed in their contracts or SLAs with ICANN. There is major difference between the scope, value and weighting of Bylaws provisions and those of bilateral agreement or contracts between the latter communities and ICANN which are limited ti the parties of SLAs and / or Contracts These legal differences must be reflected in the text in order to avoid comparing unequal circumstances. Until such differences in discharging responsibilities are not appropriately reflected, I maintain my concerns/ objection to the current text Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 20 Aug 2015, at 10:41, Martin Boyle wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > I’m trying to catch up following a long weekend away, so I might be missing a bit in this. However, it does seem to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the IFO whether directly or indirectly. > > Names: the CSC monitors the PTI directly and can seek to resolve issues with PTI or with the ICANN Board or, if this fails to bring improvements, escalate for a decision on launching an IANA Functions Review. > > Numbers: their relationship is with ICANN and is contractual. Paragraphs 2075-2077 (contract), 2085-2088 (SLA) and 2089 (SLA principles, which includes review of the IANA operations, and failure to perform). > > Protocol Parameters: according to paragraph 3063 (principles) there are requirements for openness, transparency, and accountability; reference to Internet community agreements; a requirement for “capable service;” and IAB responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the operator. > > Together it seems to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the activities of the IFO. What are we/am I missing? > > Martin > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: 19 August 2015 22:31 > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: ICG Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Dear Milton > Good to hear from you again Yes but other > OCs do not have any mandates monitor / oversight the activities of IFO > Regards > Kaviyss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Kavouss: > I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community. > > --MM > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM > To: Russ Housley > Cc: ICG Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Dear Lynn > I do not know from where you have in ferred that "The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" > Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. > We should not invent new ideas. > However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC. > The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text. > Regards > Kavouss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 09:44:05 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:44:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <1D7A15C7-987D-4758-B2EE-BDB34D8D2667@gmail.com> Dear Milton, Pls also see my reply to Martin Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Kavouss: > I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community. > > --MM > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM > To: Russ Housley > Cc: ICG Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Dear Lynn > I do not know from where you have in ferred that "The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" > Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. > We should not invent new ideas. > However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC. > The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text. > Regards > Kavouss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 09:48:43 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:48:43 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Dear Lynn Pls kindly read my earlier messages and my reply to Martin Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:25, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. > > The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the(ir) IFO (through various community managed oversight mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." > > Can I ask the secretariat to prepare the other FAQs for posting while we work to close on this one (given the comment period is nearly half over. and we have good agreement on the others). I would suggest we reorder the FAQs a bit to put these questions related to the proposal at the beginning and leave the others which largely address questions about the ICG or the process to the subsequent sections. You could repurpose section VII (make it section I) and edit it to read "About the ICG combined proposal" and under that include questions, 12 and 19, and these new questions. > > For ease of ICG members, those questions/sections are as follows: > > Q12: Have the ICG identified any issues after the individual and collective proposals assessment? > > Section VII. About ICG combined proposal and public comment period > Q19. How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? > > Jennifer, if you need anything else from me, just let me know. We will get the final question to you ASAP. > > Many thanks to all, > > Lynn > >> On Aug 16, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Dear Lynn >> Tjhhank you very much for the efforts . >> However, the last sentence >> Quote >> >> " The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." >> Unquote >> This does not reflect the reality. Infact there are other instants ( entities ) to take that responsibilty and not three community as such. >> Pls once again either take the text from the final proposal from CWG REGARDING THE pti, IFO, CSC AND IPR OR DELETE THAT PART . >> iT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ESTABLISH A NEW RESPSPONSIBILTY FOR 3OCs , in particular, NUMBERS Protocol& Parameter.. >> Moreover, it is oputside the ICG responsibiléity to make such statement. >> I have not read the rest of the doc. and may come back,should I find some thing to clarify >> Regards >> Kavouss >> p >> >> >> 2015-08-16 16:23 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >> Dear Lynn >> Tjhhank you very much for the efforts . >> However, the last sentence >> Quote >> >> The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator. >> >> 2015-08-15 17:32 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >> Dear All >> Sorry to be late >> The answer to the question relating to PTI to be found on the first proposal of CWG as was put yo public comment. >> Nothing more and nothing less >> Kavousd >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 15 Aug 2015, at 14:39, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >>> >>> Agree. >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: >>>> >>>> Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this .. >>>> Apologies for not being able to participate earlier .. >>>> I'm fine with this version .. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> --Manal >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >>>> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM >>>> To: Drazek, Keith >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>>> >>>> Thanks Keith, >>>> >>>> any comments on the other FAQ? >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I support Milton's proposed edit. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Keith Drazek >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks OK to me. >>>>>> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th question as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. >>>>>> >>>>>> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN when the transition is complete. >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>>>>> Of Lynn St.Amour >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM >>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>>>>>> Importance: High >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear ICG members, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >>>>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one >>>>>>> remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI >>>>>>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the >>>>>>> naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few >>>>>>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various >>>>>>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I >>>>>>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the>> comment period is well underway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also posted to Dropbox >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 20 11:39:34 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:39:34 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <2301C889-4838-48E5-8414-C0D96397CA4A@gmail.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> <48C871AC-657F-40B7-8C35-1F225BC3F678@gmail.com> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B0F744@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <2301C889-4838-48E5-8414-C0D96397CA4A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B0FA81@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Thanks Kavouss, That’s helpful – if I understand you correctly, your concern seems to be that the different communities will use different mechanisms and that these mechanisms might produce different outcomes for similar circumstances: is that right? If so, I personally would find it useful to see examples of how you think that the different approaches would diverge. This is important as we can’t (and shouldn’t) try to impose a common approach on the OCs. We might need to go back to them if we conclude that the different approaches won’t work together, but I thought that our analysis so far was that the three proposals were different, but coherent. In the case of significant issues with the IANA functions operator (initially PTI for names and ICANN for numbers and protocol parameters) there is one clear common mechanism: that the IANA functions operator – initially the PTI – can lose its contract. For names the community instructs ICANN to issue a RfP to replace PTI while the other communities that can re-tender their contract to move from ICANN to another operator. Fundamental for the names community is that the framework is based in ICANN – which is where many of the interested parties meet. That is not the case for the other two OCs. I would not really expect all three to have the same approach because their communities are focussed elsewhere than ICANN. You will recollect, though, that the initial model considered by the CWG followed the same approach as the other communities – of an independent organisation that let a contract to the IANA functions operator, and that this approach did not provide a basis for consensus, so was abandoned. I guess that you are right, that in the names proposal, there is a community wider than just the direct customers. However, the other OCs also have wider networks to ensure that additional accountability. So for the moment I still think that the suggested re-wording from Lynn works reasonably well – at least I cannot see any big issues associated with it. Best Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Sent: 20 August 2015 10:23 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Mueller, Milton L; ICG Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Daar Martin Welcome back to the discussion Thank you for yr comprehensive comments. However,there is considerable difference between the Name Community and the two other communities. The responsibility if the name community would be reflected in the revised Bylaws whereas the task of the two other communities are addressed in their contracts or SLAs with ICANN. There is major difference between the scope, value and weighting of Bylaws provisions and those of bilateral agreement or contracts between the latter communities and ICANN which are limited ti the parties of SLAs and / or Contracts These legal differences must be reflected in the text in order to avoid comparing unequal circumstances. Until such differences in discharging responsibilities are not appropriately reflected, I maintain my concerns/ objection to the current text Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 20 Aug 2015, at 10:41, Martin Boyle > wrote: Hi Kavouss, I’m trying to catch up following a long weekend away, so I might be missing a bit in this. However, it does seem to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the IFO whether directly or indirectly. Names: the CSC monitors the PTI directly and can seek to resolve issues with PTI or with the ICANN Board or, if this fails to bring improvements, escalate for a decision on launching an IANA Functions Review. Numbers: their relationship is with ICANN and is contractual. Paragraphs 2075-2077 (contract), 2085-2088 (SLA) and 2089 (SLA principles, which includes review of the IANA operations, and failure to perform). Protocol Parameters: according to paragraph 3063 (principles) there are requirements for openness, transparency, and accountability; reference to Internet community agreements; a requirement for “capable service;” and IAB responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the operator. Together it seems to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the activities of the IFO. What are we/am I missing? Martin From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 19 August 2015 22:31 To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: ICG Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Dear Milton Good to hear from you again Yes but other OCs do not have any mandates monitor / oversight the activities of IFO Regards Kaviyss Sent from my iPhone On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:02, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Kavouss: I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM To: Russ Housley Cc: ICG Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Dear Lynn I do not know from where you have in ferred that "The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. We should not invent new ideas. However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC. The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text. Regards Kavouss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Thu Aug 20 12:05:50 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:05:50 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> Message-ID: <20150820120550.GC3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > I do not know from where you have in ferred that "*The 3 OCs > are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of > the IFO" * Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG > ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which > the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of > IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. We should not > invent new ideas. The CWG proposal is focused on the names function. They were not always careful to distinguish ebtween IANA naming functions, and IANA functions as a whole, but I thought the clear intent was for the CSC to deal with names. --apb (Alan Barrett) From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Aug 20 12:35:49 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:35:49 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <48C871AC-657F-40B7-8C35-1F225BC3F678@gmail.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> <48C871AC-657F-40B7-8C35-1F225BC3F678@gmail.com> Message-ID: From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Other OCs do not have any mandates monitor / oversight the activities of IFO MM: Not true. IETF has an SLA with ICANN for the protocol IANA functions and the CRISP team has proposed an extensive review process. They all would have separate contracts with the IFO and they all would monitor and oversee their part of the IANA functions separately. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 14:31:57 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:31:57 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B0FA81@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <37CC842D-8A1B-4817-928D-B9A3B293FDD5@verisign.com> <92664D79-542D-49EB-9204-9B7ACF097D98@LStAmour.org> <775DA769-6937-49B5-BE47-E7374D54931B@oracle.com> <1009C2AD-833B-4D33-A1F1-4CA743CF3B6F@gmail.com> <471079C3-0FE5-47BF-8491-CC092D087E45@LStAmour.org> <601F9096-1067-451A-9585-02AA333C49CC@vigilsec.com> <48C871AC-657F-40B7-8C35-1F225BC3F678@gmail.com> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B0F744@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <2301C889-4838-48E5-8414-C0D96397CA4A@gmail.com> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81B0FA81@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <249F3CE4-573D-4D0F-9EA9-491783EEDA4F@gmail.com> Dear Martin Pls carefully read my last message. I can understand theCSC approach as I have outlined. The other communities may use whatever they wish but can not be seen as having the right identical to that of name community as they may or may not have contract with PTI Tks Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 20 Aug 2015, at 13:39, Martin Boyle wrote: > > Thanks Kavouss, > > That’s helpful – if I understand you correctly, your concern seems to be that the different communities will use different mechanisms and that these mechanisms might produce different outcomes for similar circumstances: is that right? If so, I personally would find it useful to see examples of how you think that the different approaches would diverge. This is important as we can’t (and shouldn’t) try to impose a common approach on the OCs. We might need to go back to them if we conclude that the different approaches won’t work together, but I thought that our analysis so far was that the three proposals were different, but coherent. > > In the case of significant issues with the IANA functions operator (initially PTI for names and ICANN for numbers and protocol parameters) there is one clear common mechanism: that the IANA functions operator – initially the PTI – can lose its contract. For names the community instructs ICANN to issue a RfP to replace PTI while the other communities that can re-tender their contract to move from ICANN to another operator. > > Fundamental for the names community is that the framework is based in ICANN – which is where many of the interested parties meet. That is not the case for the other two OCs. I would not really expect all three to have the same approach because their communities are focussed elsewhere than ICANN. > > You will recollect, though, that the initial model considered by the CWG followed the same approach as the other communities – of an independent organisation that let a contract to the IANA functions operator, and that this approach did not provide a basis for consensus, so was abandoned. > > I guess that you are right, that in the names proposal, there is a community wider than just the direct customers. However, the other OCs also have wider networks to ensure that additional accountability. > > So for the moment I still think that the suggested re-wording from Lynn works reasonably well – at least I cannot see any big issues associated with it. > > Best > > Martin > > > > From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] > Sent: 20 August 2015 10:23 > To: Martin Boyle > Cc: Mueller, Milton L; ICG Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Daar Martin > Welcome back to the discussion > Thank you for yr comprehensive comments. However,there is considerable difference between the Name Community and the two other communities. > The responsibility if the name community would be reflected in the revised Bylaws whereas the task of the two other communities are addressed in their contracts or SLAs with ICANN. > There is major difference between the scope, value and weighting of Bylaws provisions and those of bilateral agreement or contracts between the latter communities and ICANN which are limited ti the parties of SLAs and / or Contracts > These legal differences must be reflected in the text in order to avoid comparing unequal circumstances. > Until such differences in discharging responsibilities are not appropriately reflected, I maintain my concerns/ objection to the current text > Regards > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 20 Aug 2015, at 10:41, Martin Boyle wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > I’m trying to catch up following a long weekend away, so I might be missing a bit in this. However, it does seem to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the IFO whether directly or indirectly. > > Names: the CSC monitors the PTI directly and can seek to resolve issues with PTI or with the ICANN Board or, if this fails to bring improvements, escalate for a decision on launching an IANA Functions Review. > > Numbers: their relationship is with ICANN and is contractual. Paragraphs 2075-2077 (contract), 2085-2088 (SLA) and 2089 (SLA principles, which includes review of the IANA operations, and failure to perform). > > Protocol Parameters: according to paragraph 3063 (principles) there are requirements for openness, transparency, and accountability; reference to Internet community agreements; a requirement for “capable service;” and IAB responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the operator. > > Together it seems to me that all of the OCs have mandates to monitor and oversee the activities of the IFO. What are we/am I missing? > > Martin > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: 19 August 2015 22:31 > To: Mueller, Milton L > Cc: ICG Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Dear Milton > Good to hear from you again Yes but other > OCs do not have any mandates monitor / oversight the activities of IFO > Regards > Kaviyss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 19 Aug 2015, at 23:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Kavouss: > I think Lynn, like me, is considering the CSC as part of the names operational community. > > --MM > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:47 PM > To: Russ Housley > Cc: ICG Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > Dear Lynn > I do not know from where you have in ferred that "The 3 OCs are or will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO" > Please read carefully The Final Proposal from CWG ,PARGRAPH 105, Bullet 3 and PARAGRAPH 106, SUB PARA. 4, in which the CSC is / will be responsible to monitor the performance of IFO.Please also read Annex G , Charter of CSC. > We should not invent new ideas. > However,,OCs may, coomment on the performance of IFO in regard with their area of responsibilties and bring the matter to the attention of CSC. > The text you have proposed is inconsistent with those referred to above.and thus I am not comfortable to that and in fact object to any kind of paraphrasing the CWG text. > Regards > Kavouss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Thu Aug 20 14:53:13 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:53:13 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > all the OC proposals. > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. Lynn's question and answer: > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > for its stewardship. > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. Alan Barrett's suggestion: Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship. Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA department within ICANN? A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same work using the same resources as the current IANA department within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of ICANN. Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI? A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Aug 20 17:03:43 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comments received and translations of materials Message-ID: <00a101d0db6a$2cd2c050$867840f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, A short status update on the public comments received, and the translations of the materials. Public comments: Since the last update (last Weds) we have received 8 more public comments, bringing the total to 22. These are publicly archived here: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal- public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ Each submission, whether received via the web form or via the public-comments at ianacg.org email, is viewable and can be downloaded in a pdf format from the archive linked above. Translations: Translations of the webinar slide deck, public comment web page, including the transition proposal in parts have gone live on a rolling basis over the past week. Translated proposal in parts: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal- translations/ We are still awaiting language versions for the final formatted version (i.e. in one complete pdf per language). Public comment web page EN: https://comments.ianacg.org AR: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-ar/ ES: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-es/ FR: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-fr/ PT: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-pt/ RU: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-ru/ ZH: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-zh/ Webinar slide deck: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-documents/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Aug 20 17:31:41 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> Thank you Kavouss, Milton, and Martin for the earlier exchanges. Very helpful. Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to the original question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs. Kavouss, I hear your comment that bylaws are weightier than bilateral agreements or contracts with ICANN, and while not commenting on that directly, the fact remains that the Number and Protocol Parameter communities are responsible for determining where their IANA function needs will be implemented. That really is the salient point, and the point I was trying to make (vs. focusing on the various review mechanisms of the IFO). Part of the difficulty in reflecting these roles is we talk of the IFO as though it was one homogenous function and it is not. It may be helpful in some instances to refer to them as IFO - Names, IFO - Numbers, IFO Protocol Parameters, although that has it's own drawbacks. In any case, can we all take one last review and try to close this in the next 24 hours (1800 UTC)? If anyone believes this is still not clear enough, please suggest text. Thanks to all in advance, and it would be helpful to hear from more ICG members (fresh eyes and all that). Lynn On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there is only one remaining area needing review. The response to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include all the OC proposals. >> >> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully very soon, given the comment period is well underway. > > I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into > a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. > > Lynn's question and answer: > >> Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? >> >> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship. >> >> The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. >> >> The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. > > Alan Barrett's suggestion: > > Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship. > > Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA department within ICANN? > > A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same work using the same resources as the current IANA department within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of ICANN. > > Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI? > > A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 20 17:31:50 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comments received and translations of materials In-Reply-To: <00a101d0db6a$2cd2c050$867840f0$@icgsec.asia> References: <00a101d0db6a$2cd2c050$867840f0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <55D60F06.4070908@oracle.com> Looks like the work "workability" posed an issue for a french respondent. Just something we should consider in our outreach. On 8/20/2015 1:03 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear ICG members, > > A short status update on the public comments received, and the > translations of the materials. > > Public comments: > > Since the last update (last Weds) we have received 8 more public > comments, bringing the total to 22. > > These are publicly archived here: > > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ > > > Each submission, whether received via the web form or via the > public-comments at ianacg.org email, > is viewable and can be downloaded in a pdf format from the archive > linked above. > > Translations: > > Translations of the webinar slide deck, public comment web page, > including the transition proposal in parts have gone live on a rolling > basis over the past week. > > Translated proposal in parts: > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-translations/ > > > We are still awaiting language versions for the final formatted > version (i.e. in one complete pdf per language). > > Public comment web page > > EN: https://comments.ianacg.org > > AR: > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-ar/ > > > ES: > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-es/ > > > FR: > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-fr/ > > > PT: > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-pt/ > > > RU: > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-ru/ > > > ZH: > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-zh/ > > > Webinar slide deck: > https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-documents/ > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > 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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Aug 20 17:34:19 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:34:19 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: I like Alan's reformulation too. --MM > -----Original Message----- > helpful. Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to the original > question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs. > From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Aug 20 17:40:50 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:40:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comments received and translations of materials In-Reply-To: <55D60F06.4070908@oracle.com> References: <00a101d0db6a$2cd2c050$867840f0$@icgsec.asia> <55D60F06.4070908@oracle.com> Message-ID: <00b201d0db6f$5c20f160$1462d420$@icgsec.asia> Hi Joe, Due to the fact that the French commenter used the English web form before the French translations were available, the Secretariat - with permission from the Chairs, have reached out to the French commenter and sent him the French translations of the materials (proposal, web form, instructions) for him to review and supplement his response if he so wishes. We have not received comments in other languages so far, and given that we now have the translations up and live, we do not anticipate the same problem occurring again. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:32 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comments received and translations of materials Looks like the work "workability" posed an issue for a french respondent. Just something we should consider in our outreach. On 8/20/2015 1:03 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: Dear ICG members, A short status update on the public comments received, and the translations of the materials. Public comments: Since the last update (last Weds) we have received 8 more public comments, bringing the total to 22. These are publicly archived here: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal- public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ Each submission, whether received via the web form or via the public-comments at ianacg.org email, is viewable and can be downloaded in a pdf format from the archive linked above. Translations: Translations of the webinar slide deck, public comment web page, including the transition proposal in parts have gone live on a rolling basis over the past week. Translated proposal in parts: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal- translations/ We are still awaiting language versions for the final formatted version (i.e. in one complete pdf per language). Public comment web page EN: https://comments.ianacg.org AR: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-ar/ ES: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-es/ FR: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-fr/ PT: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-pt/ RU: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-ru/ ZH: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/combined-proposal-public-comment-period-zh/ Webinar slide deck: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-documents/ Please let me know if you have any questions. 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 mbashir at mbash.net Thu Aug 20 23:31:44 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 02:31:44 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> Thanks Lynn for the draft answer, Alan formulation is good. My concern is the last part of the answer :" including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions", I am not disputing the OC right to make such decisions based on the results of its evaluation of IFO performance for their related functions, But I am a bit concerned regarding the possibility of one OC changing/splitting the IANA functions unilaterally in the absence of a proper coordination mechanism, such a change might impact the stability and security of the Internet ( not fulfilling one of NTIA requirements ). As our mandate is to produce a harmonized combined final proposal, shouldn't we consider the unity of IANA function is an objective and propose mechanism/rules that ensure proper implementation of IFO change if it happened. Kind Regards, Mohamed ( sent from a tablet device apologies for any misspellings) > On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > I like Alan's reformulation too. > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> helpful. Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to the original >> question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Aug 21 00:37:02 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:37:02 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <490B80DC-0D7F-4529-90CF-D71424425235@oracle.com> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> <855A596D-37CA-4A03-8CED-5DA2A3799AE0@gmail.com> <490B80DC-0D7F-4529-90CF-D71424425235@oracle.com> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBBE780D@ACCAN01.accan.local> I would think that re individuals vs organisations, there may be a case for identifying whether it is a singer (individual) or a choir (organisation). Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Monday, 17 August 2015 9:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; Russ Mundy Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments I think we are concerned about the song in terms of the content of the comments, but correctly identifying the singers will help demonstrate whether there is community consensus... So I guess we need to pay attention to both what is said and who is saying it... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Dear All > Are we concerned about the "singer" or the "song" > Personally I am for the second one > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:55, Paul Wilson wrote: >> >> If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. >> >> That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. >> >> Paul. >> >> >>> On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: >>> >>> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): >>> >>> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. >>> >>> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? >>> >>> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. >>> >>> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. >>> >>> Russ M >>> >>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >>>> >>>> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>> >>>>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>>>> >>>>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>>>> >>>>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be >>>>>> treated as coming from an individual. If you mention the >>>>>> organisation your comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>>>> >>>>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Daniel >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It >>>>>>> could be completed as "individual" as the first submission has >>>>>>> done.) Or should we warn that those who do not complete the >>>>>>> organisation field will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Individual >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Organisation input >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I >>>>>>> instinctively discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly >>>>>>> curmudgeonly this evening. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Aug 21 07:31:12 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:31:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alan Barrett" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > all the OC proposals. > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. Lynn's question and answer: > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > for its stewardship. > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. Alan Barrett's suggestion: Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship. Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA department within ICANN? A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same work using the same resources as the current IANA department within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of ICANN. Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI? A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Aug 21 08:45:20 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> References: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: Hi Lynn Re Your Questions and Comments Here are my Reply Question *I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below.* Answer My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN Your explanation My ANSWER I suggest the following modifications The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” Kavouss 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, > is a pretty good solution. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alan Barrett" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > > all the OC proposals. > > > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. > > I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into > a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. > > Lynn's question and answer: > > > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > > for its stewardship. > > > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. > > Alan Barrett's suggestion: > > Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve > as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. > The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in > ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will > be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate > (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its > stewardship. > > Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA > department within ICANN? > > A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same > work using the same resources as the current IANA department > within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal > entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of > ICANN. > > Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with > PTI? > > A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the > policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract > with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number > and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with > ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow > ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, > and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure > their community's needs and expectations are met, including > choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of > the IANA functions. > > --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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Aug 21 11:27:07 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> Message-ID: <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> Is this a question we should pose to the OCs? If there is a need for some cross OC coordination review in the case of the replacement of the Operator? This would have been beyond the remit of the individual proposal... Sent from my iPad > On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Mohamed El Bashir wrote: > > Thanks Lynn for the draft answer, Alan formulation is good. > > My concern is the last part of the answer :" including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions", I am not disputing the OC right to make such decisions based on the results of its evaluation of IFO performance for their related functions, But I am a bit concerned regarding the possibility of one OC changing/splitting the IANA functions unilaterally in the absence of a proper coordination mechanism, such a change might impact the stability and security of the Internet ( not fulfilling one of NTIA requirements ). > > As our mandate is to produce a harmonized combined final proposal, shouldn't we consider the unity of IANA function is an objective and propose mechanism/rules that ensure proper implementation of IFO change if it happened. > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > ( sent from a tablet device apologies for any misspellings) > >> On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> I like Alan's reformulation too. >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> helpful. Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to the original >>> question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Aug 21 11:32:01 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:32:01 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: Colleagues If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for the non-initiate... Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the proposal. In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good. Joe Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Hi Lynn > > Re Your Questions and Comments > > Here are my Reply > Question > > I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. > > Answer > > My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI > > For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN > > > > Your explanation > My ANSWER > > I suggest the following modifications > > > The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." > > My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again > > “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” > > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : >> Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. >> >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Alan Barrett" >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >> >> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >> > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe >> > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response >> > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA >> > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not >> > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify >> > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include >> > all the OC proposals. >> > >> > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, >> > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully >> > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. >> >> I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into >> a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. >> >> Lynn's question and answer: >> >> > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? >> > >> > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >> > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >> > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >> > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to >> > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming >> > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently >> > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and >> > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an >> > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible >> > for its stewardship. >> > >> > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed >> > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the >> > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN >> > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. >> > >> > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >> > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever >> > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and >> > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA >> > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. >> >> Alan Barrett's suggestion: >> >> Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? >> >> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve >> as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. >> The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in >> ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will >> be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate >> (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its >> stewardship. >> >> Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA >> department within ICANN? >> >> A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same >> work using the same resources as the current IANA department >> within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal >> entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of >> ICANN. >> >> Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with >> PTI? >> >> A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the >> policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract >> with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number >> and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with >> ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow >> ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. >> >> Q: How will performance be evaluated? >> >> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >> evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, >> and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure >> their community's needs and expectations are met, including >> choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of >> the IANA functions. >> >> --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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Aug 21 11:40:45 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:40:45 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: Dear Joe Yes , but we shall avoid misleading the community by putting Number and Protocol communities which nay or may not have contract with PTI at the same level of CSC which usa. Integral part of Name community in monitoring the performance of IFO Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Aug 2015, at 13:32, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > > Colleagues > > If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for the non-initiate... Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the proposal. In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good. > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Hi Lynn >> Re Your Questions and Comments >> Here are my Reply >> Question >> I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. >> Answer >> My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI >> For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN >> >> Your explanation >> My ANSWER >> I suggest the following modifications >> >> The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. >> >> It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. >> >> Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." >> >> Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." >> My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again >> “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” >> >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : >>> Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. >>> >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Alan Barrett" >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >>> > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe >>> > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response >>> > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA >>> > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not >>> > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify >>> > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include >>> > all the OC proposals. >>> > >>> > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, >>> > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully >>> > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. >>> >>> I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into >>> a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. >>> >>> Lynn's question and answer: >>> >>> > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? >>> > >>> > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >>> > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >>> > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >>> > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to >>> > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming >>> > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently >>> > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and >>> > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an >>> > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible >>> > for its stewardship. >>> > >>> > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed >>> > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the >>> > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN >>> > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. >>> > >>> > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>> > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever >>> > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and >>> > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA >>> > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. >>> >>> Alan Barrett's suggestion: >>> >>> Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? >>> >>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >>> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >>> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >>> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve >>> as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. >>> The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in >>> ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will >>> be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate >>> (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its >>> stewardship. >>> >>> Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA >>> department within ICANN? >>> >>> A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same >>> work using the same resources as the current IANA department >>> within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal >>> entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of >>> ICANN. >>> >>> Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with >>> PTI? >>> >>> A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the >>> policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract >>> with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number >>> and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with >>> ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow >>> ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. >>> >>> Q: How will performance be evaluated? >>> >>> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>> evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, >>> and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure >>> their community's needs and expectations are met, including >>> choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of >>> the IANA functions. >>> >>> --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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Aug 21 11:48:11 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <55D70FFB.8090608@oracle.com> Kavouss: No question on the need for accuracy, but I wanted to underline the urgency of concluding this process in a timely manner during the consultation period when it will be of great use. Joe On 8/21/2015 7:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Joe > Yes , but we shall avoid misleading the community by putting Number > and Protocol communities which nay or may not have contract with PTI > at the same level of CSC which usa. Integral part of Name community in > monitoring the performance of IFO > Regards > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 21 Aug 2015, at 13:32, Joseph Alhadeff > wrote: > >> Colleagues >> >> If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these >> definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for >> the non-initiate... Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible >> as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the >> proposal. In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the >> perfect does not become the enemy of the good. >> >> Joe >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi Lynn >>> >>> Re Your Questions and Comments >>> >>> Here are my Reply >>> Question >>> >>> /I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the >>> objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with >>> respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated >>> in the text below./ >>> >>> Answer >>> >>> My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs >>> and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI >>> >>> For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to >>> repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level >>> of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE >>> FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT >>> WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN >>> >>> Your explanation >>> My ANSWER >>> >>> I suggest the following modifications >>> >>> >>> The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities >>> their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for >>> evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions >>> (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They >>> will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are >>> brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as >>> appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, >>> the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs >>> have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility >>> for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will >>> reside with the individual communities. >>> >>> It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of >>> all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can >>> also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this >>> along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again >>> Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may >>> miss the mark. >>> >>> Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>> evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever >>> decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and >>> expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA >>> functions operator." >>> >>> Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>> evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever >>> decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and >>> expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions >>> operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." >>> >>> My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the >>> comment which I introduce it again >>> >>> “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities >>> their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through >>> separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or >>> through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance >>> of their respective IFO functions (through various community >>> managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for >>> ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate >>> mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with >>> expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in >>> one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in >>> their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions >>> operator will be in the future will reside with the individual >>> communities.” >>> >>> >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >> >: >>> >>> Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited >>> questions, is a pretty good solution. >>> >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Alan Barrett" > >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >>> > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe >>> > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response >>> > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA >>> > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not >>> > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify >>> > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include >>> > all the OC proposals. >>> > >>> > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, >>> > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully >>> > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. >>> >>> I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting >>> it into >>> a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. >>> >>> Lynn's question and answer: >>> >>> > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? >>> > >>> > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >>> > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >>> > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >>> > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to >>> > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming >>> > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently >>> > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and >>> > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an >>> > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible >>> > for its stewardship. >>> > >>> > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed >>> > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the >>> > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN >>> > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. >>> > >>> > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>> > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever >>> > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and >>> > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA >>> > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. >>> >>> Alan Barrett's suggestion: >>> >>> Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? >>> >>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >>> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >>> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >>> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve >>> as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. >>> The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in >>> ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will >>> be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate >>> (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its >>> stewardship. >>> >>> Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA >>> department within ICANN? >>> >>> A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same >>> work using the same resources as the current IANA department >>> within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal >>> entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of >>> ICANN. >>> >>> Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with >>> PTI? >>> >>> A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the >>> policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract >>> with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number >>> and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with >>> ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow >>> ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. >>> >>> Q: How will performance be evaluated? >>> >>> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>> evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, >>> and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure >>> their community's needs and expectations are met, including >>> choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of >>> the IANA functions. >>> >>> --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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Fri Aug 21 11:52:07 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:52:07 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBBE780D@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AECB02@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <55C3A886.9020802@ripe.net> <967E7C3F-8033-473F-8546-465E98FD07BF@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AED42F@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <8577B5F2-92C4-4EDC-8532-026CD8FA7EC2@cooperw.in> <99F204B8-4441-4EC8-A5E5-9FA676A53183@tislabs.com> <9ABF8024-60AC-4696-814B-A9636538C3FC@apnic.net> <855A596D-37CA-4A03-8CED-5DA2A3799AE0@gmail.com> <490B80DC-0D7F-4529-90CF-D71424425235@oracle.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBBE780D@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <55D710E7.9000701@oracle.com> One commenter that listed Home Depot as the organization was likely not responding on behalf of the company. I'm not sure folks are focusing on these issues and it seems we all agree its to late to make any changes. On 8/20/2015 8:37 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > I would think that re individuals vs organisations, there may be a case for identifying whether it is a singer (individual) or a choir (organisation). > > > > Narelle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff > Sent: Monday, 17 August 2015 9:38 PM > To: Kavouss Arasteh > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; Russ Mundy > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments > > I think we are concerned about the song in terms of the content of the comments, but correctly identifying the singers will help demonstrate whether there is community consensus... So I guess we need to pay attention to both what is said and who is saying it... > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Dear All >> Are we concerned about the "singer" or the "song" >> Personally I am for the second one >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:55, Paul Wilson wrote: >>> >>> If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named. The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa. >>> >>> That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is. >>> >>> Paul. >>> >>> >>>> On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, Russ Mundy wrote: >>>> >>>> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth): >>>> >>>> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period. It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment. >>>> >>>> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity? >>>> >>>> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference. If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen. >>>> >>>> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment. >>>> >>>> Russ M >>>> >>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read: >>>>> >>>>> Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization): >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. I'm fine with this. We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it. And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area). >>>>>> >>>>>> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns. I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>>>> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48 >>>>>> To: Daniel Karrenberg >>>>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be >>>>>>> treated as coming from an individual. If you mention the >>>>>>> organisation your comment will be treated as coming from the organization." >>>>>> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field? >>>>>> >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have >>>>>>>> completed the "organisation" field. Am I the only one to be >>>>>>>> concerned by this lack of identification? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory? (It >>>>>>>> could be completed as "individual" as the first submission has >>>>>>>> done.) Or should we warn that those who do not complete the >>>>>>>> organisation field will be deemed to be filing personal comments? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm ok with people indicating: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Individual >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Organisation nnn, but personal input >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Organisation input >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative" >>>>>>>> which gives no indication of origins. I am afraid I >>>>>>>> instinctively discount such input - perhaps unfairly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly >>>>>>>> curmudgeonly this evening. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >>> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Aug 21 14:22:02 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> Message-ID: <3B9C6BB7-ECC9-4BD0-9482-9707D2616D8C@LStAmour.org> Hi Mohamed, Thanks much for your response. As the ability to change IFO is a key part of the OC proposals (and a central component of accountability), we should be clear on this, so calling it out is important. At the same time, the ICG evaluated all the proposals - separately and combined - including the criteria that the transition "maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS", and the ICG said it believes the proposals (combined) support this. You also ask if we should "propose mechanism/rules that ensure proper implementation of IFO change if it happened". This was meant to be addressed in the "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability" Section of each proposal. This section was to describe what changes each community was proposing (or might implement) in light of the transition and it was to cover appropriate oversight and accountability requirements. Some relevant text from the Protocol Parameters Proposal is included below, as an example (1). Given the additional clarity coming regarding the PTI and associated structures (and OC participation (or not) in those structures), it may be helpful to add an agenda point on this for our Sept. meeting. Hope this covers your concerns well enough for now, and I note your support for Alan's formulation. (1) For example, in the Protocol Parameters proposal, Paragraph 3062 says: "However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community’s expectations are met. Those expectations are the following: - 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. - 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." Best, Lynn On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Mohamed El Bashir wrote: > Thanks Lynn for the draft answer, Alan formulation is good. > > My concern is the last part of the answer :" including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions", I am not disputing the OC right to make such decisions based on the results of its evaluation of IFO performance for their related functions, But I am a bit concerned regarding the possibility of one OC changing/splitting the IANA functions unilaterally in the absence of a proper coordination mechanism, such a change might impact the stability and security of the Internet ( not fulfilling one of NTIA requirements ). > > As our mandate is to produce a harmonized combined final proposal, shouldn't we consider the unity of IANA function is an objective and propose mechanism/rules that ensure proper implementation of IFO change if it happened. > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > ( sent from a tablet device apologies for any misspellings) > >> On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> I like Alan's reformulation too. >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> helpful. Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to the original >>> question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Aug 21 14:22:59 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <55D70FFB.8090608@oracle.com> References: <55D70FFB.8090608@oracle.com> Message-ID: <293371461.8214639.1440166979594.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> All, I wish to support Alan's formulation with few addition to bring further clarity to the message  ICG is trying to convey as show below in capital. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE   AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC.  WHILE The OTHER TWO Operating Communities (OCs) WOULD BE  responsible for evaluating the performance OF ICANN AS THEIR IFO FOR THEIR parts of the IANA functions, IT IS LEFT TO EACH OPERATING COMMUNITY TO MAKE  whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. Mary Uduma On Friday, August 21, 2015 12:48 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: Kavouss: No question on the need for accuracy, but I wanted to underline the urgency of concluding this process in a timely manner during the consultation period when it will be of great use. Joe On 8/21/2015 7:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Joe Yes , but we shall avoid misleading the community by putting Number and Protocol communities which nay or may not have contract with PTI at the same level of CSC which usa. Integral part of Name community in monitoring the performance of IFO Regards Kavouss    Sent from my iPhone On 21 Aug 2015, at 13:32, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: Colleagues If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for the non-initiate...  Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the proposal.  In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good. Joe  Sent from my iPad On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Hi Lynn Re Your Questions and Comments Here are my Reply Question  I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please?  Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. Answer My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs  or SLAs WITH  PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT  through ICANN   Your explanation My ANSWER I suggest the following modifications The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels.  While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text.  In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. Current:  "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities  or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels.  While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” Kavouss 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alan Barrett" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs.  In the > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > there is only one remaining area needing review.  The response > to the question:  "How is PTI different from the current IANA > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > making that explicit.  I added a few lines to try and clarify > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > all the OC proposals. > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted.  Hopefully > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. Lynn's question and answer: > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > for its stewardship. > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. Alan Barrett's suggestion: Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship. Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA department within ICANN? A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same work using the same resources as the current IANA department within ICANN.  The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of ICANN. Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI? A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions.  The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. --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 _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Aug 21 15:04:38 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:04:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <293371461.8214639.1440166979594.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55D70FFB.8090608@oracle.com> <293371461.8214639.1440166979594.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <381564586.8200477.1440169478147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> I think that the Contract between IETF and ICANN  provided for the evaluation of the IFO performance for the Protocol Parameter IANA function, in the same way the contract  being crafted by the CRISP Team provided for the evaluation of   the IFO performance of the Numbering IANA function.As far as I understand from Alan's answers to me in one of my questions during our last call, Numbering Community has no interaction with PTI as depicted in the graphics. (If I am wrong, Alan you can correct me.) Jari may wish to clarify whether same goes with the IETF. If  the two answers are in the affirmative, then ICG's answer to the FQA on evaluation of performance should be clear enough to depict the correct situation. Like Joseph  said, if we in the ICG are confused, the public and readers would be more confused if the answers are not clearly stated. Mary On Friday, August 21, 2015 3:22 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: All, I wish to support Alan's formulation with few addition to bring further clarity to the message  ICG is trying to convey as show below in capital. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE   AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC.  WHILE The OTHER TWO Operating Communities (OCs) WOULD BE  responsible for evaluating the performance OF ICANN AS THEIR IFO FOR THEIR parts of the IANA functions, IT IS LEFT TO EACH OPERATING COMMUNITY TO MAKE  whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. Mary Uduma On Friday, August 21, 2015 12:48 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: Kavouss: No question on the need for accuracy, but I wanted to underline the urgency of concluding this process in a timely manner during the consultation period when it will be of great use. Joe On 8/21/2015 7:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Joe Yes , but we shall avoid misleading the community by putting Number and Protocol communities which nay or may not have contract with PTI at the same level of CSC which usa. Integral part of Name community in monitoring the performance of IFO Regards Kavouss    Sent from my iPhone On 21 Aug 2015, at 13:32, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: Colleagues If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for the non-initiate...  Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the proposal.  In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good. Joe  Sent from my iPad On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Hi Lynn Re Your Questions and Comments Here are my Reply Question  I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please?  Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. Answer My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs  or SLAs WITH  PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT  through ICANN   Your explanation My ANSWER I suggest the following modifications The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels.  While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text.  In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. Current:  "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities  or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels.  While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” Kavouss 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alan Barrett" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs.  In the > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > there is only one remaining area needing review.  The response > to the question:  "How is PTI different from the current IANA > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > making that explicit.  I added a few lines to try and clarify > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > all the OC proposals. > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted.  Hopefully > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. Lynn's question and answer: > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > for its stewardship. > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. Alan Barrett's suggestion: Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship. Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA department within ICANN? A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same work using the same resources as the current IANA department within ICANN.  The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of ICANN. Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI? A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions.  The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. --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 _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Aug 21 15:18:23 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:18:23 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <443945050.8215580.1440169417417.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55D70FFB.8090608@oracle.com> <293371461.8214639.1440166979594.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <443945050.8215580.1440169417417.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20150821151823.5267539.65184.24513@yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Aug 21 15:33:21 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:33:21 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- >Is this a question we should pose to the OCs? If there is a need for some cross OC > coordination review in the case of the replacement of the Operator? This would >have been beyond the remit of the individual proposal... No, I don't think so. I think Mohammed is basically giving us his opinion on how the proposals should handle possible splitting of the IANA functions. That opinion, as far as I can tell, was not shared by all of the operational communities. I do not think it is within our charter to say that the IANA functions must remain within a single operator. At one point the names community proferred a proposal (the shared services proposal for a PTI) that made a point of trying to keep them together. My recollection is that the protocls and numbers communities were not at all interested in that and particularly not so keen on the new shared governance arrangements it would entail. I have not seen any convincing evidence that putting them in different operators would necessarily threaten 'the stability and security of the internet.' Nothing in the NTIA's remit to us, or to ICANN, tells us that keeping all the IANA functions in the same operator is a requirement. Let's recall that the FAQs are _about the proposal we actually have_ and not about what some of us here in the ICG would prefer. The proposal before us gives each OC the right to "choose/change the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions." So Alan's formulation is an accurate answer to the question. --MM Sent from my iPad > On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Mohamed El Bashir wrote: > > Thanks Lynn for the draft answer, Alan formulation is good. > > My concern is the last part of the answer :" including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions", I am not disputing the OC right to make such decisions based on the results of its evaluation of IFO performance for their related functions, But I am a bit concerned regarding the possibility of one OC changing/splitting the IANA functions unilaterally in the absence of a proper coordination mechanism, such a change might impact the stability and security of the Internet ( not fulfilling one of NTIA requirements ). > > As our mandate is to produce a harmonized combined final proposal, shouldn't we consider the unity of IANA function is an objective and propose mechanism/rules that ensure proper implementation of IFO change if it happened. > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > ( sent from a tablet device apologies for any misspellings) > >> On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> I like Alan's reformulation too. >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> helpful. Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to >>> the original question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 paf at frobbit.se Fri Aug 21 15:41:31 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:41:31 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> Message-ID: On 21 Aug 2015, at 17:33, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > I have not seen any convincing evidence that putting them in different operators would necessarily threaten 'the stability and security of the internet.' We all know that for example: - Other protocol parameters than the ones asked for by IETF is managed by IANA - Not all protocol parameters IETF ask for is IANA Function at ICANN asked to take care of So there is a split in multiple ways already today, within the Protocol Parameter OC(*). And the earth is still spinning around the sun. Patrik P.S. This is the reason why SSAC wrote one document on what IANA is and is doing and a separate document on the NTIA Contract with IANA. Two different things that do not match 1:1, and on top of that we have splits like the one described above. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Aug 21 15:43:34 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:43:34 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55D74726.9050909@oracle.com> Milton: I see the issue differently. The general business community is concerned fist and foremost with the continued stability, security, functionality etc of the Internet. I think many other communities are so inclined as well. I agree and do not think that ICG should decide what is preferable or necessary, but this might be a reasonable question to pose the communities. Each community in their proposal was considering its own needs and functions with some consideration of interdependency. It is not clear whether the issue of different operators was considered as a possible issue of coordination. If they all concur that this raises no issue of concern or coordination, it would then address the issue. I think the question is can we correctly assert that this does not create issues from the material before us. From my reading, I don't see it addressed yet. Joe On 8/21/2015 11:33 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > -----Original Message----- >> Is this a question we should pose to the OCs? If there is a need for some cross OC >> coordination review in the case of the replacement of the Operator? This would >> have been beyond the remit of the individual proposal... > No, I don't think so. > > I think Mohammed is basically giving us his opinion on how the proposals should handle possible splitting of the IANA functions. > That opinion, as far as I can tell, was not shared by all of the operational communities. > I do not think it is within our charter to say that the IANA functions must remain within a single operator. At one point the names community proferred a proposal (the shared services proposal for a PTI) that made a point of trying to keep them together. My recollection is that the protocls and numbers communities were not at all interested in that and particularly not so keen on the new shared governance arrangements it would entail. > > I have not seen any convincing evidence that putting them in different operators would necessarily threaten 'the stability and security of the internet.' > Nothing in the NTIA's remit to us, or to ICANN, tells us that keeping all the IANA functions in the same operator is a requirement. > > Let's recall that the FAQs are _about the proposal we actually have_ and not about what some of us here in the ICG would prefer. The proposal before us gives each OC the right to "choose/change the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions." So Alan's formulation is an accurate answer to the question. > > --MM > > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Mohamed El Bashir wrote: >> >> Thanks Lynn for the draft answer, Alan formulation is good. >> >> My concern is the last part of the answer :" including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions", I am not disputing the OC right to make such decisions based on the results of its evaluation of IFO performance for their related functions, But I am a bit concerned regarding the possibility of one OC changing/splitting the IANA functions unilaterally in the absence of a proper coordination mechanism, such a change might impact the stability and security of the Internet ( not fulfilling one of NTIA requirements ). >> >> As our mandate is to produce a harmonized combined final proposal, shouldn't we consider the unity of IANA function is an objective and propose mechanism/rules that ensure proper implementation of IFO change if it happened. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Mohamed >> >> ( sent from a tablet device apologies for any misspellings) >> >>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> I like Alan's reformulation too. >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> helpful. Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to >>>> the original question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Fri Aug 21 15:55:30 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:55:30 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] CANCELLED: ICG call #23, Aug 26 Message-ID: <7F3D194A-D93C-49B9-B9CD-DFC8CB640282@cooperw.in> As we do not have much to discuss and email discussion is proceeding well, we are canceling our call next week. We will also be slightly rescheduling some of our other upcoming calls. Jennifer will send email with the details and updated calendar invites. Alissa From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Aug 21 16:06:09 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Upcoming ICG call schedule changes Message-ID: <00f101d0dc2b$4bffbca0$e3ff35e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Per the ICG chairs, the call scheduled for next Wednesday 26 August is CANCELLED. In addition, the following scheduling changes will be made for future calls: 1. Call scheduled for Wednesday 9 September will be RESCHEDULED to Thursday 10 September at 05:00-06:30 UTC. 2. Call scheduled for Wednesday 23 September 11:00-12:30 UTC will remain unchanged. 3. Call scheduled for Wednesday 7 October will be RESCHEDULED to Thursday 8 October 19:00-20:30 UTC. The updated calendar invites will go out shortly to all ICG members. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Aug 21 16:32:44 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:32:44 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <293371461.8214639.1440166979594.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55D70FFB.8090608@oracle.com> <293371461.8214639.1440166979594.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mary, I would not support the first part of your modification (IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC) This makes it sound as if ICANN is overseeing itself, when in fact CSC and the IANA Functions Review are meant to be independent of ICANN., ICANN is the ‘owner’ or ‘controller’ of PTI, even though it is legally separated. Of course as the owner or controller of PTI, ICANN the corporation will oversee and be responsible for PTI’s performance, but it is really the names operational community that has primary responsibility for evaluating and monitoring PTI’s performance. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 10:23 AM To: joseph alhadeff; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars All, I wish to support Alan's formulation with few addition to bring further clarity to the message ICG is trying to convey as show below in capital. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC. WHILE The OTHER TWO Operating Communities (OCs) WOULD BE responsible for evaluating the performance OF ICANN AS THEIR IFO FOR THEIR parts of the IANA functions, IT IS LEFT TO EACH OPERATING COMMUNITY TO MAKE whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. Mary Uduma On Friday, August 21, 2015 12:48 PM, joseph alhadeff > wrote: Kavouss: No question on the need for accuracy, but I wanted to underline the urgency of concluding this process in a timely manner during the consultation period when it will be of great use. Joe On 8/21/2015 7:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Joe Yes , but we shall avoid misleading the community by putting Number and Protocol communities which nay or may not have contract with PTI at the same level of CSC which usa. Integral part of Name community in monitoring the performance of IFO Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 21 Aug 2015, at 13:32, Joseph Alhadeff > wrote: Colleagues If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for the non-initiate... Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the proposal. In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good. Joe Sent from my iPad On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: Hi Lynn Re Your Questions and Comments Here are my Reply Question I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. Answer My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN Your explanation My ANSWER I suggest the following modifications The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” Kavouss 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >: Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alan Barrett" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > all the OC proposals. > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. Lynn's question and answer: > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > for its stewardship. > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. Alan Barrett's suggestion: Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship. Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA department within ICANN? A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same work using the same resources as the current IANA department within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of ICANN. Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI? A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. --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 _______________________________________________ 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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Fri Aug 21 18:04:02 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <55D74726.9050909@oracle.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> <55D74726.9050909@oracle.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > > Milton: > > I see the issue differently. The general business community is concerned fist > and foremost with the continued stability, security, functionality etc of the > Internet. I think many other communities are so inclined as well. I agree and > do not think that ICG should decide what is preferable or necessary, but this > might be a reasonable question to pose the communities. Each community First, it is not clear to me what question you want to ask. Perhaps this argument will end if you formulate a question in a way that doesn't presume that giving each OC a right to hold its IFO accountable by firing them is a bad thing. > in their proposal was considering its own needs and functions with some > consideration of interdependency. It is not clear whether the issue of > different operators was considered as a possible issue of coordination. It was considered extensively by IANAPLAN and figured prominently in discussions about the trademark and domain. As I said before, the shared services plan that was considered in the second round of the CWG dealt with this issue and it was discussed as part of that model. Well, almost by definition if the numbers and protocols communities are insisting on a right to defect from the existing IFO and choose another they must not think it raises serious coordination issues. Actually IETF has had that right for a decade. From Lynn at lstamour.org Fri Aug 21 18:49:21 2015 From: Lynn at lstamour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Message-ID: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> Thank you Kavouss, and everyone else for your comments; trying to address the remaining comments here. Kavouss, I believe Alan's reformulation covers your comments, and more clearly identifies the responsibilities of the 3 OCs. Mary, I agree with Milton's comments and believe Alan's language is more straight-forward. I will incorporate these changes into the FAQ document and work with the secretariat to get the FAQ updated, translated and posted. Thanks much for everyone's support. The final document is attached. Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IANA transition - possible FAQ additions 8-11-2015 v4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Hi Lynn > > Re Your Questions and Comments > > Here are my Reply > Question > > I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. > > Answer > > My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI > > For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN > > > Your explanation > My ANSWER > > I suggest the following modifications > > > The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." > > My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again > > “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” > > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alan Barrett" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > > all the OC proposals. > > > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. > > I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into > a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. > > Lynn's question and answer: > > > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > > for its stewardship. > > > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. > > Alan Barrett's suggestion: > > Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve > as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. > The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in > ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will > be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate > (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its > stewardship. > > Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA > department within ICANN? > > A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same > work using the same resources as the current IANA department > within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal > entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of > ICANN. > > Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with > PTI? > > A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the > policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract > with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number > and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with > ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow > ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, > and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure > their community's needs and expectations are met, including > choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of > the IANA functions. > > --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 jen at icgsec.asia Fri Aug 21 20:32:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> References: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> Message-ID: <017f01d0dc50$8ace61a0$a06b24e0$@icgsec.asia> Dear Lynn and all, Attached (and uploaded to Dropbox) is the word version of the FAQ that incorporates Lynn's v4 document with the current published FAQ https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-fa q/. Lynn, please confirm that the section rearranging and renumbering is as envisaged. To re-cap: 1. Section VII renumbered as Section I, renamed as 'About the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal' 2. The new Section I to contain the following questions in this order: -- Old Q12 -- All the questions contained in the previous Section VII (Old Q19 - 24) -- All the questions in v4 'FAQ additions' 3. All sections following renumbered as appropriate 4. The link to the previous FAQ version will be updated as soon as we upload the newest version. If the attached document looks correct, we will upload this to the ICG website and also send this in for translation. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 2:49 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Thank you Kavouss, and everyone else for your comments; trying to address the remaining comments here. Kavouss, I believe Alan's reformulation covers your comments, and more clearly identifies the responsibilities of the 3 OCs. Mary, I agree with Milton's comments and believe Alan's language is more straight-forward. I will incorporate these changes into the FAQ document and work with the secretariat to get the FAQ updated, translated and posted. Thanks much for everyone's support. The final document is attached. Best, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-FAQ-update-21Aug15.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 181844 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Fri Aug 21 20:41:50 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:41:50 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> References: <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za><14872438.224.1440141971024.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> Message-ID: <27CDE92D99B54AF6B088A6BFE9F37C63@WUKPC> Thanks very much Lynn. I'm fine with this FAQ. I have a more general question re the status of the protocols community proposal which seems having expired on July 10. I think it should be ensured that we'll hand over a formally valid proposal...maybe an update from IANAPLAN could help. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 8:49 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars Thank you Kavouss, and everyone else for your comments; trying to address the remaining comments here. Kavouss, I believe Alan's reformulation covers your comments, and more clearly identifies the responsibilities of the 3 OCs. Mary, I agree with Milton's comments and believe Alan's language is more straight-forward. I will incorporate these changes into the FAQ document and work with the secretariat to get the FAQ updated, translated and posted. Thanks much for everyone's support. The final document is attached. Best, Lynn On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Hi Lynn > > Re Your Questions and Comments > > Here are my Reply > Question > > I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the > objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to > the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text > below. > > Answer > > My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to > the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI > > For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat > them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of > responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR > MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR > CONTRACT through ICANN > > > Your explanation > My ANSWER > > I suggest the following modifications > > > The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their > Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the > performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community > managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for > ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate > mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected > service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization > (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the > responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future > will reside with the individual communities. > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 > proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help > clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested > some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I > understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions > are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, > including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions > are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, > including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF > IANA FUNCTIONS." > > My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the > comment which I introduce it again > > “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their > Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate > Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will > be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO > functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). > They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are > brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as > appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO > for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made > it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA > functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual > communities.” > > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, > is a pretty good solution. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alan Barrett" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > > all the OC proposals. > > > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. > > I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into > a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. > > Lynn's question and answer: > > > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > > for its stewardship. > > > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. > > Alan Barrett's suggestion: > > Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve > as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. > The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in > ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will > be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate > (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its > stewardship. > > Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA > department within ICANN? > > A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same > work using the same resources as the current IANA department > within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal > entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of > ICANN. > > Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with > PTI? > > A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the > policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract > with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number > and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with > ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow > ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, > and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure > their community's needs and expectations are met, including > choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of > the IANA functions. > > --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 > _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Aug 21 21:23:14 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 21:23:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> Message-ID: <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you Lynn,The question of how performance will be evaluated is still not very clear. Do you mean the performance of which entity? IFO  for the 3 OCs?  Each IFO to each of the  OCs? or PTI? I will suggest this question be deleted until there is a consensus in the Group.Not everyone has accepted the formulation by Alan as there are still ambiguity in the  answer provided. Why not seek agreement of all or if members can live with it before taking it to the public. I personally would like the Chair(s) to resolve this and come up with a consensus formulation to take care of the concerns of members before going public with this question.  It actually touches on the issue of workability assessment. Mary Uduma . On Friday, August 21, 2015 7:49 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Thank you Kavouss, and everyone else for your comments; trying to address the remaining comments here. Kavouss, I believe Alan's reformulation covers your comments, and more clearly identifies the responsibilities of the 3 OCs.    Mary, I agree with Milton's comments and believe Alan's language is more straight-forward. I will incorporate these changes into the FAQ document and work with the secretariat to get the FAQ updated, translated and posted. Thanks much for everyone's support.  The final document is attached. Best, Lynn On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Hi Lynn > > Re Your Questions and Comments > > Here are my Reply > Question > >  I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please?  Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. > > Answer > > My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI > > For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs  or SLAs WITH  PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT  through ICANN > >  > Your explanation > My ANSWER > > I suggest the following modifications > > > The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels.  While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text.  In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > Current:  "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." > > My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again > > “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities  or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels.  While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” > > > Kavouss > > > > 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alan Barrett" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs.  In the > > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > > there is only one remaining area needing review.  The response > > to the question:  "How is PTI different from the current IANA > > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > > making that explicit.  I added a few lines to try and clarify > > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > > all the OC proposals. > > > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted.  Hopefully > > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. > > I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into > a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. > > Lynn's question and answer: > > > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an > > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > > for its stewardship. > > > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. > > Alan Barrett's suggestion: > > Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve > as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. > The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in > ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will > be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an affiliate > (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its > stewardship. > > Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA > department within ICANN? > > A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same > work using the same resources as the current IANA department > within ICANN.  The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal > entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of > ICANN. > > Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with > PTI? > > A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the > policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract > with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions.  The Number > and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with > ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow > ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, > and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure > their community's needs and expectations are met, including > choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of > the IANA functions. > > --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 > _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Aug 21 21:57:52 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 21:57:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <656134194.8320444.1440194272779.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Milton. Are you saying that CSC is independent of ICANN?  Is CSC not constituted by the ICANN -Policy (drawn from SOs/ACs) as an oversight mechanism similar to IETF or the RIRs oversight? Is PTI not providing service to ICANN POLICY based on a legal contract? Would CSC oversight not be included in that contract? Who would evaluate the performance of this contract? Would ICANN-POLICY  as the sole owner of PTI not have the powers to sack PTI as IFO for IANA function for the names only, including appointing another service provider? Just like the IETF-AIB and the RIRs can walk away if not satisfied  with their  IFOs, in this case, ICANN? Is NTIA intending to hand over its  IANA function oversight to CSC? Thank you   Mary Uduma On Friday, August 21, 2015 5:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: #yiv2529677048 #yiv2529677048 -- _filtered #yiv2529677048 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2529677048 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2529677048 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv2529677048 #yiv2529677048 p.yiv2529677048MsoNormal, #yiv2529677048 li.yiv2529677048MsoNormal, #yiv2529677048 div.yiv2529677048MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2529677048 a:link, #yiv2529677048 span.yiv2529677048MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2529677048 a:visited, #yiv2529677048 span.yiv2529677048MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2529677048 span.yiv2529677048EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2529677048 .yiv2529677048MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2529677048 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2529677048 div.yiv2529677048WordSection1 {}#yiv2529677048 Mary, I would not support the first part of your modification (IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE   AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC)   This makes it sound as if ICANN is overseeing itself, when in fact CSC and the IANA Functions Review are meant to be independent of ICANN., ICANN is the ‘owner’ or ‘controller’ of PTI, even though it is legally separated. Of course as the owner or controller of PTI, ICANN the corporation will oversee and be responsible for PTI’s performance, but it is really the names operational community that has primary responsibility for evaluating and monitoring PTI’s performance.   --MM     From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org]On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 10:23 AM To: joseph alhadeff; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars   All,   I wish to support Alan's formulation with few addition to bring further clarity to the message  ICG is trying to convey as show below in capital.     Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE   AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC.  WHILE The OTHER TWO Operating Communities (OCs) WOULD BE  responsible for evaluating the performance OF ICANN AS THEIR IFO FOR THEIR parts of the IANA functions, IT IS LEFT TO EACH OPERATING COMMUNITY TO MAKE  whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions.   Mary Uduma       On Friday, August 21, 2015 12:48 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote:   Kavouss: No question on the need for accuracy, but I wanted to underline the urgency of concluding this process in a timely manner during the consultation period when it will be of great use. Joe On 8/21/2015 7:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Joe Yes , but we shall avoid misleading the community by putting Number and Protocol communities which nay or may not have contract with PTI at the same level of CSC which usa. Integral part of Name community in monitoring the performance of IFO Regards Kavouss      Sent from my iPhone On 21 Aug 2015, at 13:32, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: Colleagues   If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for the non-initiate...  Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the proposal.  In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good.   Joe  Sent from my iPad On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Hi Lynn Re Your Questions and Comments Here are my Reply Question  I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please?  Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. Answer My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs  or SLAs WITH  PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT  through ICANN   Your explanation My ANSWER I suggest the following modifications The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels.  While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text.  In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. Current:  "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities  or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring  mechanisms).  They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels.  While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” Kavouss     2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alan Barrett" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs.  In the > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > there is only one remaining area needing review.  The response > to the question:  "How is PTI different from the current IANA > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > making that explicit.  I added a few lines to try and clarify > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > all the OC proposals. > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted.  Hopefully > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. Lynn's question and answer: > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > for its stewardship. > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. Alan Barrett's suggestion: Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI.  The PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its stewardship. Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA department within ICANN? A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same work using the same resources as the current IANA department within ICANN.  The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of ICANN. Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI? A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions.  The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. --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   _______________________________________________ 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 Lynn at LStAmour.org Sat Aug 22 03:12:50 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Mary, The OC proposals say that each OC will define their own procedures for evaluating the performance of whatever entity they contract with to implement their portion of the IANA functions (and they are different for each OC). What I think is important for the FAQ is the principle that each community is responsible for evaluating the performance (and addressing any shortfalls) of the entity they have contracted with to implement their IANA functions, and not so much the details of the operations. There is consensus within the ICG on this point per our proposal (and this is what we were attempting to reflect in the FAQ). It gets confusing when we start talking about the PTI given the differences in how the three OCs will be interacting with it. We may need to break this evaluation, etc. part out further, but that is probably more appropriately done once we have additional details from all the OCs on how they intend to interact with the PTI and the associated structures. Some of this is still emerging. I am happy to have the chairs step in (frankly, happy to have anyone step in) and bring this to closure, but let me try one more time in the interest of getting this posted. Soooo, given some of the details are not clear/final can we leave the FAQ at the principle level? The text is included here for ease. Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. Thanks in advance to all for your comments and help closing this. Best, Lynn On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: > Thank you Lynn, > The question of how performance will be evaluated is still not very clear. > Do you mean the performance of which entity? IFO for the 3 OCs? Each IFO to each of the OCs? or PTI? > I will suggest this question be deleted until there is a consensus in the Group. > Not everyone has accepted the formulation by Alan as there are still ambiguity in the answer provided. > > > Why not seek agreement of all or if members can live with it before taking it to the public. > > I personally would like the Chair(s) to resolve this and come up with a consensus formulation to take care of the concerns of members before going public with this question. It actually touches on the issue of workability assessment. > > Mary Uduma > . > > > > On Friday, August 21, 2015 7:49 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > > Thank you Kavouss, and everyone else for your comments; trying to address the remaining comments here. > > Kavouss, I believe Alan's reformulation covers your comments, and more clearly identifies the responsibilities of the 3 OCs. Mary, I agree with Milton's comments and believe Alan's language is more straight-forward. > > I will incorporate these changes into the FAQ document and work with the secretariat to get the FAQ updated, translated and posted. > > Thanks much for everyone's support. The final document is attached. > > Best, > > Lynn > > > > On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > > Hi Lynn > > > > Re Your Questions and Comments > > > > Here are my Reply > > Question > > > > I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. > > > > Answer > > > > My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI > > > > For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN > > > > > > Your explanation > > My ANSWER > > > > I suggest the following modifications > > > > > > The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > > > Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." > > > > My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again > > > > “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” > > > > > > Kavouss > > > > > > > > 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > > Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. > > > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "Alan Barrett" > > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > > Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 > > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > > > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > > > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > > > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > > > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > > > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > > > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > > > all the OC proposals. > > > > > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > > > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > > > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. > > > > I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into > > a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. > > > > Lynn's question and answer: > > > > > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > > > > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > > > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > > > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > > > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > > > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > > > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > > > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > > > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > > > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > > > for its stewardship. > > > > > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > > > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > > > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > > > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > > > > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > > > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > > > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > > > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > > > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. > > > > Alan Barrett's suggestion: > > > > Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? > > > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve > > as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. > > The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in > > ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will > > be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate > > (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its > > stewardship. > > > > Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA > > department within ICANN? > > > > A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same > > work using the same resources as the current IANA department > > within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal > > entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of > > ICANN. > > > > Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with > > PTI? > > > > A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the > > policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract > > with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number > > and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with > > ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow > > ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. > > > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > > evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, > > and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure > > their community's needs and expectations are met, including > > choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of > > the IANA functions. > > > > --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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > From paf at frobbit.se Sat Aug 22 07:36:57 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:36:57 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> From my perspective on very abstract level each OC is responsible for setting the service levels they expect from the IANA function, i.e. the actual interaction customers of IANA have with IANA. This includes both specifying what is to be measured, how it is to be measured, how appeals and remedies is managed. This will in turn be managed by an agreement between the OC and ICANN. Now, for the Names, which is an internal ICANN process, how this is to be set up is specified in great detail, for natural reasons. For the other OCs, it is more abstract as for example for the protocol parameters there is an MOU with ICANN on the performance of IANA, but how IANA is implementing their side of the agreement is more or less up to ICANN. I.e. it does not matter much, from an IETF perspective, what mechanisms ICANN use to ensure quality is met, reports are delivered and changes needed are implemented. Because of this I also support what is on the table at the moment. It describes specifically the CWG proposal and explain that the other OCs are different. To get some convergence in the discussion, let me ask the question differently: - What in the proposed text do you ICG members find being wrong? Patrik On 22 Aug 2015, at 5:12, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Hi Mary, > > The OC proposals say that each OC will define their own procedures for evaluating the performance of whatever entity they contract with to implement their portion of the IANA functions (and they are different for each OC). What I think is important for the FAQ is the principle that each community is responsible for evaluating the performance (and addressing any shortfalls) of the entity they have contracted with to implement their IANA functions, and not so much the details of the operations. There is consensus within the ICG on this point per our proposal (and this is what we were attempting to reflect in the FAQ). > > It gets confusing when we start talking about the PTI given the differences in how the three OCs will be interacting with it. We may need to break this evaluation, etc. part out further, but that is probably more appropriately done once we have additional details from all the OCs on how they intend to interact with the PTI and the associated structures. Some of this is still emerging. > > I am happy to have the chairs step in (frankly, happy to have anyone step in) and bring this to closure, but let me try one more time in the interest of getting this posted. Soooo, given some of the details are not clear/final can we leave the FAQ at the principle level? The text is included here for ease. > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. > > Thanks in advance to all for your comments and help closing this. > > Best, > Lynn > > On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: > >> Thank you Lynn, >> The question of how performance will be evaluated is still not very clear. >> Do you mean the performance of which entity? IFO for the 3 OCs? Each IFO to each of the OCs? or PTI? >> I will suggest this question be deleted until there is a consensus in the Group. >> Not everyone has accepted the formulation by Alan as there are still ambiguity in the answer provided. >> >> >> Why not seek agreement of all or if members can live with it before taking it to the public. >> >> I personally would like the Chair(s) to resolve this and come up with a consensus formulation to take care of the concerns of members before going public with this question. It actually touches on the issue of workability assessment. >> >> Mary Uduma >> . >> >> >> >> On Friday, August 21, 2015 7:49 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> >> >> Thank you Kavouss, and everyone else for your comments; trying to address the remaining comments here. >> >> Kavouss, I believe Alan's reformulation covers your comments, and more clearly identifies the responsibilities of the 3 OCs. Mary, I agree with Milton's comments and believe Alan's language is more straight-forward. >> >> I will incorporate these changes into the FAQ document and work with the secretariat to get the FAQ updated, translated and posted. >> >> Thanks much for everyone's support. The final document is attached. >> >> Best, >> >> Lynn >> >> >> >> On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >>> Hi Lynn >>> >>> Re Your Questions and Comments >>> >>> Here are my Reply >>> Question >>> >>> I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. >>> >>> Answer >>> >>> My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI >>> >>> For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN >>> >>> >>> Your explanation >>> My ANSWER >>> >>> I suggest the following modifications >>> >>> >>> The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. >>> >>> It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. >>> >>> Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." >>> >>> Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." >>> >>> My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again >>> >>> “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” >>> >>> >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : >>> Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. >>> >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Alan Barrett" >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe >>>> there is only one remaining area needing review. The response >>>> to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA >>>> department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not >>>> making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify >>>> that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include >>>> all the OC proposals. >>>> >>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, >>>> I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully >>>> very soon, given the comment period is well underway. >>> >>> I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into >>> a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. >>> >>> Lynn's question and answer: >>> >>>> Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? >>>> >>>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >>>> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >>>> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >>>> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to >>>> serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming >>>> functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently >>>> housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and >>>> know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an >>>> affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible >>>> for its stewardship. >>>> >>>> The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed >>>> that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the >>>> IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN >>>> sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. >>>> >>>> The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>>> evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever >>>> decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and >>>> expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA >>>> functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. >>> >>> Alan Barrett's suggestion: >>> >>> Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? >>> >>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >>> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >>> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >>> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve >>> as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. >>> The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in >>> ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will >>> be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate >>> (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its >>> stewardship. >>> >>> Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA >>> department within ICANN? >>> >>> A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same >>> work using the same resources as the current IANA department >>> within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal >>> entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of >>> ICANN. >>> >>> Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with >>> PTI? >>> >>> A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the >>> policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract >>> with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number >>> and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with >>> ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow >>> ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. >>> >>> Q: How will performance be evaluated? >>> >>> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>> evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, >>> and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure >>> their community's needs and expectations are met, including >>> choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of >>> the IANA functions. >>> >>> --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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 08:27:00 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:27:00 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <656134194.8320444.1440194272779.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <656134194.8320444.1440194272779.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5DB51AD0-93CE-4B05-8B54-6C0BB589E8C5@gmail.com> Dear All It is a pity that even at the level of ICG there is several understanding of what PTI means bad cover I was not an ICG Liaison ti CWG but actively followed the discussions. In view of the fact that PTI was designed to address accountability and oversight if transition mainly fir names we could not put Numbers and Protocols at the level and the authority as that of Names. I know all IETF and CRISP wish to do so but it is inappropriate Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Aug 2015, at 23:57, Mary Uduma wrote: > > Milton. > > Are you saying that CSC is independent of ICANN? Is CSC not constituted by the ICANN -Policy (drawn from SOs/ACs) as an oversight mechanism similar to IETF or the RIRs oversight? > Is PTI not providing service to ICANN POLICY based on a legal contract? Would CSC oversight not be included in that contract? Who would evaluate the performance of this contract? > Would ICANN-POLICY as the sole owner of PTI not have the powers to sack PTI as IFO for IANA function for the names only, including appointing another service provider? Just like the IETF-AIB and the RIRs can walk away if not satisfied with their IFOs, in this case, ICANN? > > Is NTIA intending to hand over its IANA function oversight to CSC? > > Thank you > > Mary Uduma > > > > > > > On Friday, August 21, 2015 5:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: > > > Mary, > I would not support the first part of your modification (IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC) > > This makes it sound as if ICANN is overseeing itself, when in fact CSC and the IANA Functions Review are meant to be independent of ICANN., > ICANN is the ‘owner’ or ‘controller’ of PTI, even though it is legally separated. Of course as the owner or controller of PTI, ICANN the corporation will oversee and be responsible for PTI’s performance, but it is really the names operational community that has primary responsibility for evaluating and monitoring PTI’s performance. > > --MM > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 10:23 AM > To: joseph alhadeff; Kavouss Arasteh > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > All, > > I wish to support Alan's formulation with few addition to bring further clarity to the message ICG is trying to convey as show below in capital. > > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: IT IS EXPECTED THAT ICANN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING PTI'S PERFORMANCE AS THE IFO FOR THE NAMING COMMUNITY (FUNCTION), THROUGH THE PROPOSED CSC, ETC. WHILE The OTHER TWO Operating Communities (OCs) WOULD BE responsible for > evaluating the performance OF ICANN AS THEIR IFO FOR THEIR parts of the IANA functions, > IT IS LEFT TO EACH OPERATING COMMUNITY TO MAKE whatever decisions are required to ensure > their community's needs and expectations are met, including > choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of > the IANA functions. > > Mary Uduma > > > > On Friday, August 21, 2015 12:48 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > > Kavouss: > > No question on the need for accuracy, but I wanted to underline the urgency of concluding this process in a timely manner during the consultation period when it will be of great use. > > Joe > On 8/21/2015 7:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Joe > Yes , but we shall avoid misleading the community by putting Number and Protocol communities which nay or may not have contract with PTI at the same level of CSC which usa. Integral part of Name community in monitoring the performance of IFO > Regards > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 21 Aug 2015, at 13:32, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > Colleagues > > If we, who have been so involved in this process, are having these definitional issues I can only presume the potential difficulties for the non-initiate... Let us resolve these issues as soon as possible as it seems the FAQs may be very important to those reviewing the proposal. In the interest of utility let us work to assure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good. > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Hi Lynn > Re Your Questions and Comments > Here are my Reply > Question > I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. > Answer > My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI > For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN > > Your explanation > My ANSWER > I suggest the following modifications > > The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > > Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > > Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." > My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again > “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” > > > Kavouss > > > 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > > Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alan Barrett" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > > attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > > there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > > to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > > department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > > making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > > that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > > all the OC proposals. > > > > A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > > I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > > very soon, given the comment period is well underway. > > I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into > a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. > > Lynn's question and answer: > > > Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > > > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > > serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > > functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > > housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > > know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > > affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > > for its stewardship. > > > > The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > > that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > > IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > > sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > > > > The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > > decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > > functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. > > Alan Barrett's suggestion: > > Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? > > A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve > as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. > The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in > ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will > be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate > (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its > stewardship. > > Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA > department within ICANN? > > A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same > work using the same resources as the current IANA department > within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal > entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of > ICANN. > > Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with > PTI? > > A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the > policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract > with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number > and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with > ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow > ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, > and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure > their community's needs and expectations are met, including > choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of > the IANA functions. > > --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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Aug 22 09:54:51 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:54:51 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> , <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> I agree with Lynn and Patrik, and I support Alan's formulation. Thanks, Keith Drazek Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 22, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > From my perspective on very abstract level each OC is responsible for setting the service levels they expect from the IANA function, i.e. the actual interaction customers of IANA have with IANA. This includes both specifying what is to be measured, how it is to be measured, how appeals and remedies is managed. This will in turn be managed by an agreement between the OC and ICANN. > > Now, for the Names, which is an internal ICANN process, how this is to be set up is specified in great detail, for natural reasons. > > For the other OCs, it is more abstract as for example for the protocol parameters there is an MOU with ICANN on the performance of IANA, but how IANA is implementing their side of the agreement is more or less up to ICANN. I.e. it does not matter much, from an IETF perspective, what mechanisms ICANN use to ensure quality is met, reports are delivered and changes needed are implemented. > > > Because of this I also support what is on the table at the moment. It describes specifically the CWG proposal and explain that the other OCs are different. > > > To get some convergence in the discussion, let me ask the question differently: > > - What in the proposed text do you ICG members find being wrong? > > Patrik > >> On 22 Aug 2015, at 5:12, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> >> Hi Mary, >> >> The OC proposals say that each OC will define their own procedures for evaluating the performance of whatever entity they contract with to implement their portion of the IANA functions (and they are different for each OC). What I think is important for the FAQ is the principle that each community is responsible for evaluating the performance (and addressing any shortfalls) of the entity they have contracted with to implement their IANA functions, and not so much the details of the operations. There is consensus within the ICG on this point per our proposal (and this is what we were attempting to reflect in the FAQ). >> >> It gets confusing when we start talking about the PTI given the differences in how the three OCs will be interacting with it. We may need to break this evaluation, etc. part out further, but that is probably more appropriately done once we have additional details from all the OCs on how they intend to interact with the PTI and the associated structures. Some of this is still emerging. >> >> I am happy to have the chairs step in (frankly, happy to have anyone step in) and bring this to closure, but let me try one more time in the interest of getting this posted. Soooo, given some of the details are not clear/final can we leave the FAQ at the principle level? The text is included here for ease. >> >> Q: How will performance be evaluated? >> >> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. >> >> Thanks in advance to all for your comments and help closing this. >> >> Best, >> Lynn >> >>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Lynn, >>> The question of how performance will be evaluated is still not very clear. >>> Do you mean the performance of which entity? IFO for the 3 OCs? Each IFO to each of the OCs? or PTI? >>> I will suggest this question be deleted until there is a consensus in the Group. >>> Not everyone has accepted the formulation by Alan as there are still ambiguity in the answer provided. >>> >>> >>> Why not seek agreement of all or if members can live with it before taking it to the public. >>> >>> I personally would like the Chair(s) to resolve this and come up with a consensus formulation to take care of the concerns of members before going public with this question. It actually touches on the issue of workability assessment. >>> >>> Mary Uduma >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, August 21, 2015 7:49 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thank you Kavouss, and everyone else for your comments; trying to address the remaining comments here. >>> >>> Kavouss, I believe Alan's reformulation covers your comments, and more clearly identifies the responsibilities of the 3 OCs. Mary, I agree with Milton's comments and believe Alan's language is more straight-forward. >>> >>> I will incorporate these changes into the FAQ document and work with the secretariat to get the FAQ updated, translated and posted. >>> >>> Thanks much for everyone's support. The final document is attached. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Lynn >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Lynn >>>> >>>> Re Your Questions and Comments >>>> >>>> Here are my Reply >>>> Question >>>> >>>> I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. >>>> >>>> Answer >>>> >>>> My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI >>>> >>>> For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT through ICANN >>>> >>>> >>>> Your explanation >>>> My ANSWER >>>> >>>> I suggest the following modifications >>>> >>>> >>>> The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. >>>> >>>> It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. >>>> >>>> Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." >>>> >>>> Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." >>>> >>>> My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the comment which I introduce it again >>>> >>>> “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” >>>> >>>> >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : >>>> Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited questions, is a pretty good solution. >>>> >>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Alan Barrett" >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 >>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the >>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe >>>>> there is only one remaining area needing review. The response >>>>> to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA >>>>> department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not >>>>> making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify >>>>> that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include >>>>> all the OC proposals. >>>>> >>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, >>>>> I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully >>>>> very soon, given the comment period is well underway. >>>> >>>> I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it into >>>> a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. >>>> >>>> Lynn's question and answer: >>>> >>>>> Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? >>>>> >>>>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >>>>> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >>>>> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >>>>> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to >>>>> serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming >>>>> functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently >>>>> housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and >>>>> know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an >>>>> affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible >>>>> for its stewardship. >>>>> >>>>> The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed >>>>> that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the >>>>> IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN >>>>> sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. >>>>> >>>>> The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>>>> evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever >>>>> decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and >>>>> expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA >>>>> functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. >>>> >>>> Alan Barrett's suggestion: >>>> >>>> Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? >>>> >>>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a >>>> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit >>>> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). >>>> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve >>>> as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. >>>> The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in >>>> ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will >>>> be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate >>>> (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its >>>> stewardship. >>>> >>>> Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA >>>> department within ICANN? >>>> >>>> A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same >>>> work using the same resources as the current IANA department >>>> within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal >>>> entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of >>>> ICANN. >>>> >>>> Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with >>>> PTI? >>>> >>>> A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the >>>> policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract >>>> with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number >>>> and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with >>>> ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow >>>> ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. >>>> >>>> Q: How will performance be evaluated? >>>> >>>> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for >>>> evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, >>>> and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure >>>> their community's needs and expectations are met, including >>>> choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of >>>> the IANA functions. >>>> >>>> --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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 apb at cequrux.com Sat Aug 22 12:14:57 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:14:57 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20150822121456.GD1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > Is this a question we should pose to the OCs? If there is a > need for some cross OC coordination review in the case of the > replacement of the Operator? This would have been beyond the > remit of the individual proposal... The CRISP Team's proposal anticipates that coordination may be needed if different OCs ever choose different IANA functions operators, and says that such coordination should be distinct from the stewardship transition process. I quote from the proposal: This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) will have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator related to maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process. --apb (Alan Barrett) From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 12:21:39 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 14:21:39 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> Message-ID: Dear aLAN, You stated that Quote *" Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. --apb (Alan Barrett"* Unquote Pls clearly indicate from which part of the proposal from CWG or ICG such the phrase " *including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions." * *This is not true * *Changing / choosing the IANA FUNCTION OPERATOR IS TO BE DONE THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE AS CONTAINED IN cwgFINAL PROPOSAL* *I THREFORE DISAGREE WITH THIS PèORTION.* *IMAINTAIN MY INITIAL POSITIONS AS AMENDED IN MY LAST MESSAGE TO lynn* *Regards* *Kavouss * 2015-08-22 11:54 GMT+02:00 Drazek, Keith : > I agree with Lynn and Patrik, and I support Alan's formulation. > > Thanks, > Keith Drazek > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 22, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > > > From my perspective on very abstract level each OC is responsible for > setting the service levels they expect from the IANA function, i.e. the > actual interaction customers of IANA have with IANA. This includes both > specifying what is to be measured, how it is to be measured, how appeals > and remedies is managed. This will in turn be managed by an agreement > between the OC and ICANN. > > > > Now, for the Names, which is an internal ICANN process, how this is to > be set up is specified in great detail, for natural reasons. > > > > For the other OCs, it is more abstract as for example for the protocol > parameters there is an MOU with ICANN on the performance of IANA, but how > IANA is implementing their side of the agreement is more or less up to > ICANN. I.e. it does not matter much, from an IETF perspective, what > mechanisms ICANN use to ensure quality is met, reports are delivered and > changes needed are implemented. > > > > > > Because of this I also support what is on the table at the moment. It > describes specifically the CWG proposal and explain that the other OCs are > different. > > > > > > To get some convergence in the discussion, let me ask the question > differently: > > > > - What in the proposed text do you ICG members find being wrong? > > > > Patrik > > > >> On 22 Aug 2015, at 5:12, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >> > >> Hi Mary, > >> > >> The OC proposals say that each OC will define their own procedures for > evaluating the performance of whatever entity they contract with to > implement their portion of the IANA functions (and they are different for > each OC). What I think is important for the FAQ is the principle that > each community is responsible for evaluating the performance (and > addressing any shortfalls) of the entity they have contracted with to > implement their IANA functions, and not so much the details of the > operations. There is consensus within the ICG on this point per our > proposal (and this is what we were attempting to reflect in the FAQ). > >> > >> It gets confusing when we start talking about the PTI given the > differences in how the three OCs will be interacting with it. We may need > to break this evaluation, etc. part out further, but that is probably more > appropriately done once we have additional details from all the OCs on how > they intend to interact with the PTI and the associated structures. Some > of this is still emerging. > >> > >> I am happy to have the chairs step in (frankly, happy to have anyone > step in) and bring this to closure, but let me try one more time in the > interest of getting this posted. Soooo, given some of the details are not > clear/final can we leave the FAQ at the principle level? The text is > included here for ease. > >> > >> Q: How will performance be evaluated? > >> > >> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating > the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making > whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and > expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions > operator for their part of the IANA functions. > >> > >> Thanks in advance to all for your comments and help closing this. > >> > >> Best, > >> Lynn > >> > >>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: > >>> > >>> Thank you Lynn, > >>> The question of how performance will be evaluated is still not very > clear. > >>> Do you mean the performance of which entity? IFO for the 3 OCs? Each > IFO to each of the OCs? or PTI? > >>> I will suggest this question be deleted until there is a consensus in > the Group. > >>> Not everyone has accepted the formulation by Alan as there are still > ambiguity in the answer provided. > >>> > >>> > >>> Why not seek agreement of all or if members can live with it before > taking it to the public. > >>> > >>> I personally would like the Chair(s) to resolve this and come up with > a consensus formulation to take care of the concerns of members before > going public with this question. It actually touches on the issue of > workability assessment. > >>> > >>> Mary Uduma > >>> . > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Friday, August 21, 2015 7:49 PM, Lynn St.Amour > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you Kavouss, and everyone else for your comments; trying to > address the remaining comments here. > >>> > >>> Kavouss, I believe Alan's reformulation covers your comments, and more > clearly identifies the responsibilities of the 3 OCs. Mary, I agree with > Milton's comments and believe Alan's language is more straight-forward. > >>> > >>> I will incorporate these changes into the FAQ document and work with > the secretariat to get the FAQ updated, translated and posted. > >>> > >>> Thanks much for everyone's support. The final document is attached. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Lynn > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Lynn > >>>> > >>>> Re Your Questions and Comments > >>>> > >>>> Here are my Reply > >>>> Question > >>>> > >>>> I am not clear on your objections, can you clarify please? Is the > objection over the roles of the 3 OCs (as described below) with respect to > the(ir) IFO or perhaps the IFO and the PTI are conflated in the text below. > >>>> > >>>> Answer > >>>> > >>>> My comments relate mostly to the responsibilities of the three OCs > and to the smaller extent to the IFO and PTI > >>>> > >>>> For the first pls see my comments earlier sent and I do not want to > repeat them. One should not put Numbers and Protocols at the level of > responsibilities as those of NAMES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORMER MAY OR > MAY NOT HAVE CONTRACTs or SLAs WITH PTI THUS MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR > CONTRACT through ICANN > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Your explanation > >>>> My ANSWER > >>>> > >>>> I suggest the following modifications > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their > Roles and their relation with PTI wil be responsible, for evaluating the > performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community > managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for > ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate > mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected > service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization > (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the > responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future > will reside with the individual communities. > >>>> > >>>> It can be hard to find words that capture the appropriate intent of > all 3 proposals, so perhaps ICG members from the 3 communities can also > help clarify/suggest text. In the interest of moving this along, I > suggested some edits (in caps) that may help, but again Kavouss, I am not > sure I understand your objections, so these may miss the mark. > >>>> > >>>> Current: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are > required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, > including choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." > >>>> > >>>> Proposed: "The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions > are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, > including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF > IANA FUNCTIONS." > >>>> > >>>> My suggestions for the above is as proposed at the beginning of the > comment which I introduce it again > >>>> > >>>> “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities > their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate > Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will > be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO > functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They > will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought > back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate > into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs > is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in > their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions > operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kavouss > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2015-08-21 9:31 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > >>>> Alan's formulation, with more specific answers to more limited > questions, is a pretty good solution. > >>>> > >>>> Jean-Jacques. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ----- Mail original ----- > >>>> De: "Alan Barrett" > >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Août 2015 16:53:13 > >>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars > >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs. In the > >>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe > >>>>> there is only one remaining area needing review. The response > >>>>> to the question: "How is PTI different from the current IANA > >>>>> department?" was very focused on the naming functions while not > >>>>> making that explicit. I added a few lines to try and clarify > >>>>> that (virtually all from the various proposals) and to include > >>>>> all the OC proposals. > >>>>> > >>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, > >>>>> I will work with the secretariat to get these posted. Hopefully > >>>>> very soon, given the comment period is well underway. > >>>> > >>>> I think that Lynn's answer is accurate, but I suggest splitting it > into > >>>> a few smaller questions/answer pairs, as indicated below. > >>>> > >>>> Lynn's question and answer: > >>>> > >>>>> Q: How is PTI different from the current IANA department? > >>>>> > >>>>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > >>>>> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > >>>>> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > >>>>> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to > >>>>> serve as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming > >>>>> functions. The entire IANA functions department staff currently > >>>>> housed in ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and > >>>>> know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an > >>>>> affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible > >>>>> for its stewardship. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed > >>>>> that the current contractual relationships with ICANN for the > >>>>> IANA Functions Operator be maintained, and if necessary ICANN > >>>>> sub-contract the registry functions to PTI. > >>>>> > >>>>> The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > >>>>> evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever > >>>>> decisions are required to ensure their community=92s needs and > >>>>> expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA > >>>>> functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS. > >>>> > >>>> Alan Barrett's suggestion: > >>>> > >>>> Q: What is the Post-Transition IANA (PTI)? > >>>> > >>>> A: In their proposal, the Names community proposed to form a > >>>> new, separate legal entity (PTI) in the form of a non-profit > >>>> corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). > >>>> They proposed that ICANN enter into a contract with PTI to serve > >>>> as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for the naming functions. > >>>> The entire IANA functions department staff currently housed in > >>>> ICANN, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will > >>>> be legally transferred to PTI. The PTI will be an affiliate > >>>> (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for its > >>>> stewardship. > >>>> > >>>> Q: What is the relationship between PTI and the existing IANA > >>>> department within ICANN? > >>>> > >>>> A: PTI is expected to employ the same people and perfom the same > >>>> work using the same resources as the current IANA department > >>>> within ICANN. The difference is that PTI will be a separate legal > >>>> entity, while the current IANA department is legally part of > >>>> ICANN. > >>>> > >>>> Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with > >>>> PTI? > >>>> > >>>> A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the > >>>> policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract > >>>> with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number > >>>> and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with > >>>> ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow > >>>> ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. > >>>> > >>>> Q: How will performance be evaluated? > >>>> > >>>> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > >>>> evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, > >>>> and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure > >>>> their community's needs and expectations are met, including > >>>> choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of > >>>> the IANA functions. > >>>> > >>>> --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 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 apb at cequrux.com Sat Aug 22 12:33:01 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:33:01 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <381564586.8200477.1440169478147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55D70FFB.8090608@oracle.com> <293371461.8214639.1440166979594.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <381564586.8200477.1440169478147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20150822123301.GE1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Mary Uduma wrote: > I think that the Contract between IETF and ICANN  provided > for the evaluation of the IFO performance for the Protocol > Parameter IANA function, in the same way the contract  being > crafted by the CRISP Team provided for the evaluation of   > the IFO performance of the Numbering IANA function.As far as > I understand from Alan's answers to me in one of my questions > during our last call, Numbering Community has no interaction > with PTI as depicted in the graphics. (If I am wrong, Alan you > can correct me.) Yes, the RIRs are expecting to contract with ICANN, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. See section 15.11 of the draft SLA , the gist of which is that [15.11.1] ICANN (the "Operator") must obtain consent from the RIRs before sub-contracting, the RIRs will not unreasonably withhold consent, [15.11.2] sub-contracting does not release ICANN from any contractual obligations, and [15.11.3] ICANN must cooperate if the RIRs ever decide to contract directly with the sub-contractor. > Jari may wish to clarify whether same goes with the IETF. I think that the IANAPLAN proposal was clear enough that the IETF would interact with ICANN (not with PTI). > If  the two answers are in the affirmative, then ICG's answer > to the FQA on evaluation of performance should be clear enough > to depict the correct situation. > > Like Joseph  said, if we in the ICG are confused, the public > and readers would be more confused if the answers are not > clearly stated. I attempted to capture the interactions in one of my suggested FAQs: Q: How will the three Operating Communities (OCs) interact with PTI? A: The Names community has proposed that ICANN (in its role as the policy coordinating body for the names community) will contract with PTI for operation of the IANA naming functions. The Number and Protocol Parameter communities have proposed to contract with ICANN for the operatation of their IANA functions, and to allow ICANN to sub-contract to PTI. --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at cequrux.com Sat Aug 22 12:38:09 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:38:09 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <5DB51AD0-93CE-4B05-8B54-6C0BB589E8C5@gmail.com> References: <656134194.8320444.1440194272779.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5DB51AD0-93CE-4B05-8B54-6C0BB589E8C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150822123809.GF1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > It is a pity that even at the level of ICG there is several > understanding of what PTI means bad cover I was not an ICG > Liaison ti CWG but actively followed the discussions. In view > of the fact that PTI was designed to address accountability > and oversight if transition mainly fir names we could not put > Numbers and Protocols at the level and the authority as that > of Names. I know all IETF and CRISP wish to do so but it is > inappropriate I am unable to understand this comment. In what sense do Numbers and Protocol Parameters have a lower level or less authority than Names? What inappropriate thing it it alleged that IETF and CRISP wish to do? --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at cequrux.com Sat Aug 22 12:51:30 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:51:30 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> Message-ID: <20150822125130.GG1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >Dear aLAN, >You stated that Quote > > >*" Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities >(OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the >IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure >their community's needs and expectations are met, including >choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA >functions. --apb (Alan Barrett"* >Unquote > >Pls clearly indicate from which part of the proposal from CWG or ICG such >the phrase " *including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for >their part of the IANA functions." * There's a large section of the CWG proposal that discusses what they call "separation" (which actually means choosing a different operator for the IANA naming functions), and there's a complex IANA Functions review (IFR) process that may result in the choice of a different operator for the IANA naming functions. >*This is not true * >*Changing / choosing the IANA FUNCTION OPERATOR IS TO BE DONE THROUGH A >SPECIFIC PROCEDURE AS CONTAINED IN cwgFINAL PROPOSAL* Yes, there's a specific procedure for the names community to choose a different operator for the names part of the IANA functions. I am not sure what part of my statement you disagree with. >*I THREFORE DISAGREE WITH THIS PèORTION.* >*IMAINTAIN MY INITIAL POSITIONS AS AMENDED IN MY LAST MESSAGE TO lynn* It's quite possible that my wording is confusing, and I welcome suggestions for improvements. --apb (Alan Barrett) From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Aug 22 13:52:23 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <20150822121456.GD1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> <20150822121456.GD1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <55D87E97.2060509@oracle.com> Thanks for the clarification Alan. Is the needed coordination a consensus across the communities? Its that kind of forward thinking in terms of workability going into the future across scenarios that provides comfort to those not participating in the operational communities or direct customers of the operator. We need to recall that NTIA's multistakeholder consensus includes the users of the Internet, not just those involved in its technical provision. Joe On 8/22/2015 8:14 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >> Is this a question we should pose to the OCs? If there is a need for >> some cross OC coordination review in the case of the replacement of >> the Operator? This would have been beyond the remit of the >> individual proposal... > > The CRISP Team's proposal anticipates that coordination may be needed > if different OCs ever choose different IANA functions operators, and > says that such coordination should be distinct from the stewardship > transition process. I quote from the proposal: > > This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number > community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) > will > have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator > related to > maintenance of the specific registries for which they are > responsible. At > the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the > importance of communication and coordination between these > communities to > ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and > coordination would be especially vital should the three communities > reach > different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions > Operator > after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and > coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via > processes distinct from this stewardship transition process. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 22 14:46:05 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:46:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <55D87E97.2060509@oracle.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> <20150822121456.GD1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <55D87E97.2060509@oracle.com> Message-ID: <65C89EC8-D4C7-4E28-BD08-D271533491B3@gmail.com> Dear All Two things 1 numbers and protocols decided not to make a contract with PTI and remains acting through ICCNN On the other hand PTI is legally and operationally separated from ICANN. We therefore should not mixed up the case i.e . On the one hand not be part part of PTI and on the other hand exercising the sane authority and rights in monitoring IFO . One or other. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Aug 2015, at 15:52, joseph alhadeff wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification Alan. Is the needed coordination a consensus across the communities? Its that kind of forward thinking in terms of workability going into the future across scenarios that provides comfort to those not participating in the operational communities or direct customers of the operator. We need to recall that NTIA's multistakeholder consensus includes the users of the Internet, not just those involved in its technical provision. > > Joe > >> On 8/22/2015 8:14 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: >>> Is this a question we should pose to the OCs? If there is a need for some cross OC coordination review in the case of the replacement of the Operator? This would have been beyond the remit of the individual proposal... >> >> The CRISP Team's proposal anticipates that coordination may be needed >> if different OCs ever choose different IANA functions operators, and >> says that such coordination should be distinct from the stewardship >> transition process. I quote from the proposal: >> >> This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number >> community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) will >> have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator related to >> maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At >> the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the >> importance of communication and coordination between these communities to >> ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and >> coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach >> different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator >> after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and >> coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via >> processes distinct from this stewardship transition process. >> >> --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 milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Sat Aug 22 16:15:44 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:15:44 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <656134194.8320444.1440194272779.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <656134194.8320444.1440194272779.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com] Are you saying that CSC is independent of ICANN? MM: Yes. We must distinguish between entities that form around ICANN and ICANN the corporation. CSC as you say is constituted by the ICANN community through defined processes recognized in ICANN’s bylaws, but it is the IANA names customers, not ICANN-corporate, that it represents. Is PTI not providing service to ICANN POLICY based on a legal contract? Would CSC oversight not be included in that contract? Who would evaluate the performance of this contract? MM: CSC oversight would be in ICANN’s bylaws, not in the PTI contract. I am not sure what you mean by “ICANN POLICY” but maybe you just mean the community around ICANN as opposed to ICANN corporate. Would ICANN-POLICY as the sole owner of PTI not have the powers to sack PTI as IFO for IANA function for the names only, including appointing another service provider? Just like the IETF-AIB and the RIRs can walk away if not satisfied with their IFOs, in this case, ICANN? MM: No, ICANN can change PTI managers (more accurately, instruct its appointed board members to sack the individuals who work for PTI) but it cannot choose another IFO unilaterally. Only the community via the IFR process can do that. Is NTIA intending to hand over its IANA function oversight to CSC? MM: No. NTIA is handing over its stewardship to the “global multistakeholder community” which includes these new institutional mechanisms that are defined in the names, numbers and protocols communities. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Sat Aug 22 16:16:42 2015 From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:16:42 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <5DB51AD0-93CE-4B05-8B54-6C0BB589E8C5@gmail.com> References: <656134194.8320444.1440194272779.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5DB51AD0-93CE-4B05-8B54-6C0BB589E8C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] It is a pity that even at the level of ICG there is several understanding of what PTI means Yes, but not all of them are correct ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Sat Aug 22 17:03:45 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:03:45 +0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <65C89EC8-D4C7-4E28-BD08-D271533491B3@gmail.com> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> <20150822121456.GD1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <55D87E97.2060509@oracle.com> <65C89EC8-D4C7-4E28-BD08-D271533491B3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150822170344.GH1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >Dear All >Two things >1 numbers and protocols decided not to make a contract with PTI and remains acting through ICCNN >On the other hand PTI is legally and operationally separated from ICANN. Yes, those statements are both correct. > We therefore should not mixed up the case i.e . On the one hand > not be part part of PTI and on the other hand exercising the > sane authority and rights in monitoring IFO . One or other. When you say "IFO" do you mean IANA functions operator in general, or are you following the CWGs confusing practice of using "IFO" to refer to the IANA naming functions operator? If you mean the IANA naming functions operator, then indeed the numbering community doesn't have much of a role (except perhaps for names like in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa). If you mean the IANA functions operator in general, then I believe that the numbers community must have the ability to monitor the performance of the numbers part of it. If ICANN sub-contracts the IANA numbers function to PTI (as we expect to happen under the combined proposal), then the numbers community needs the aility to monitor PTI's performance of the IANA numbers function. The numbers community expects to do that via its review committee and the contract ("SLA") between the RIRs and ICANN. --apb (Alan Barrett) From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 18:57:25 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:57:25 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <20150822170344.GH1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> <20150822121456.GD1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <55D87E97.2060509@oracle.com> <65C89EC8-D4C7-4E28-BD08-D271533491B3@gmail.com> <20150822170344.GH1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <513DADAA-7655-4739-B701-02741642B84A@gmail.com> Dear A Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Aug 2015, at 19:03, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Dear All >> Two things >> 1 numbers and protocols decided not to make a contract with PTI and remains acting through ICCNN >> On the other hand PTI is legally and operationally separated from ICANN. > > Yes, those statements are both correct. > >> We therefore should not mixed up the case i.e . On the one hand not be part part of PTI and on the other hand exercising the sane authority and rights in monitoring IFO . One or other. > > When you say "IFO" do you mean IANA functions operator in general, or are you following the CWGs confusing practice of using "IFO" to refer to the IANA naming functions operator? > > If you mean the IANA naming functions operator, then indeed the numbering community doesn't have much of a role (except perhaps for names like in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa). > > If you mean the IANA functions operator in general, then I believe that the numbers community must have the ability to monitor the performance of the numbers part of it. If ICANN sub-contracts the IANA numbers function to PTI (as we expect to happen under the combined proposal), then the numbers community needs the aility to monitor PTI's performance of the IANA numbers function. The numbers community expects to do that via its review committee and the contract ("SLA") between the RIRs and ICANN. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 22 20:03:14 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <20150822170344.GH1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <11710476.450.1439494224594.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <20150820145313.GF3191@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4FBB66D0-6FDD-4CA2-9DCA-25DF8C32E2F9@LStAmour.org> <41E2F5C5-8831-4A10-A9BF-EE8A93CA4069@mbash.net> <01538427-99B4-4699-8C12-2BA913D2CE60@oracle.com> <20150822121456.GD1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <55D87E97.2060509@oracle.com> <65C89EC8-D4C7-4E28-BD08-D271533491B3@gmail.com> <20150822170344.GH1383@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <82AAAD1B-A6D5-49B2-8C7A-4C311844F9CC@gmail.com> Dear Alan It is a pity that you describe the proposal of the CWG ,as "confusing practice" It is unfair fair that an individual categorise the Final Proposal of a Cross Community Working Group which devotedly, tirelessly and competently worked fir months and months preparing the proposal which was subject to two public comments and unanimously adopted by 5 chartering organisations " confusing" It is a pity that an individual Make such an unfair invalid , unfounded statement and judgement I do not know how you dare to say so Pls reconsider your understanding and be fair with hundreds if people who worked diligently, efficiently, competently and tirelessly Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Aug 2015, at 19:03, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Dear All >> Two things >> 1 numbers and protocols decided not to make a contract with PTI and remains acting through ICCNN >> On the other hand PTI is legally and operationally separated from ICANN. > > Yes, those statements are both correct. > >> We therefore should not mixed up the case i.e . On the one hand not be part part of PTI and on the other hand exercising the sane authority and rights in monitoring IFO . One or other. > > When you say "IFO" do you mean IANA functions operator in general, or are you following the CWGs confusing practice of using "IFO" to refer to the IANA naming functions operator? > > If you mean the IANA naming functions operator, then indeed the numbering community doesn't have much of a role (except perhaps for names like in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa). > > If you mean the IANA functions operator in general, then I believe that the numbers community must have the ability to monitor the performance of the numbers part of it. If ICANN sub-contracts the IANA numbers function to PTI (as we expect to happen under the combined proposal), then the numbers community needs the aility to monitor PTI's performance of the IANA numbers function. The numbers community expects to do that via its review committee and the contract ("SLA") between the RIRs and ICANN. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 22 20:10:12 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:10:12 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <656134194.8320444.1440194272779.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5DB51AD0-93CE-4B05-8B54-6C0BB589E8C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes But us have the correct one!!!!!? Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Aug 2015, at 18:16, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > > From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] > > It is a pity that even at the level of ICG there is several understanding of what PTI means > > Yes, but not all of them are correct ;-) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Sun Aug 23 02:54:32 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> Message-ID: <48E33AE4-D9C9-420A-A3C7-52AA37D07327@LStAmour.org> On Aug 22, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear aLAN, > You stated that Quote > > " Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. > > --apb (Alan Barrett" > Unquote > Pls clearly indicate from which part of the proposal from CWG or ICG such the phrase " including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions." > This is not true > Changing / choosing the IANA FUNCTION OPERATOR IS TO BE DONE THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE AS CONTAINED IN cwgFINAL PROPOSAL > I THREFORE DISAGREE WITH THIS PèORTION. Hi Kavouss, the CWG proposal only speaks to Names and can only speak for Names as the ICG and all the community long ago determined that the most appropriate way to manage this is through the 3 OCs. Much of the confusion seems to come from the less than precise terminology being used to describe what is in effect 3 separate IANA function implementation activities. These implementation activities are performed today by one organization but may not be in the future. When someone says IFO (or PTI) it is not clear whether they are referring to 1 - the PTI as the Naming functions IANA operator ONLY, or 2 - if they think this means the PTI is the IFO for all 3 OCs. The Numbers and PP communities mean point 1 above and see the PTI as the IFO for Names (only), and they see ICANN as the IFO for Numbers and PP, hence the suggested text in the FAQ. The fact that all 3 OC IFO's are to be housed within the PTI does not supersede each community's responsibility or rights over THEIR IFO. Hence, each OC has the responsibility to choose/change THEIR IFO using their own procedures and do not expect to rely (or be held accountable to) the CWG processes. Hope this helps clarify why I cannot agree with your statement above. Are we getting closer to closing on the FAQ text? Lynn PS. We should think about how we make these distinctions more clear - either through refining our terminology or better defining PTI. From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 10:13:00 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <48E33AE4-D9C9-420A-A3C7-52AA37D07327@LStAmour.org> References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> <48E33AE4-D9C9-420A-A3C7-52AA37D07327@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <9544C134-563F-4EEF-9288-E15886A98F15@gmail.com> Lynn Thanks for further clarifications I have given my amendments to yr earlier text before which is a middle ground Pls take it ad amendments to your last text Regards Have a nice and pleasant week- end Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 23 Aug 2015, at 04:54, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > >> On Aug 22, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Dear aLAN, >> You stated that Quote >> >> " Q: How will performance be evaluated? >> >> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett" >> Unquote >> Pls clearly indicate from which part of the proposal from CWG or ICG such the phrase " including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions." >> This is not true >> Changing / choosing the IANA FUNCTION OPERATOR IS TO BE DONE THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE AS CONTAINED IN cwgFINAL PROPOSAL >> I THREFORE DISAGREE WITH THIS PèORTION. > > Hi Kavouss, > > the CWG proposal only speaks to Names and can only speak for Names as the ICG and all the community long ago determined that the most appropriate way to manage this is through the 3 OCs. > > Much of the confusion seems to come from the less than precise terminology being used to describe what is in effect 3 separate IANA function implementation activities. These implementation activities are performed today by one organization but may not be in the future. When someone says IFO (or PTI) it is not clear whether they are referring to 1 - the PTI as the Naming functions IANA operator ONLY, or 2 - if they think this means the PTI is the IFO for all 3 OCs. The Numbers and PP communities mean point 1 above and see the PTI as the IFO for Names (only), and they see ICANN as the IFO for Numbers and PP, hence the suggested text in the FAQ. The fact that all 3 OC IFO's are to be housed within the PTI does not supersede each community's responsibility or rights over THEIR IFO. Hence, each OC has the responsibility to choose/change THEIR IFO using their own procedures and do not expect to rely (or be held accountable to) the CWG processes. > > Hope this helps clarify why I cannot agree with your statement above. > > Are we getting closer to closing on the FAQ text? > > Lynn > > PS. We should think about how we make these distinctions more clear - either through refining our terminology or better defining PTI. > > > > From Lynn at LStAmour.org Sun Aug 23 16:50:43 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:50:43 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: <9544C134-563F-4EEF-9288-E15886A98F15@gmail.com> References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> <48E33AE4-D9C9-420A-A3C7-52AA37D07327@LStAmour.org> <9544C134-563F-4EEF-9288-E15886A98F15@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Kavouss, thank you. I am trying to understand and find a middle ground. To summarize current state: Current proposed text : Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." I understand you to be suggesting the following text from your earlier message: “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” I made a few edits - intent was only to clarify - not change… Q: How will performance be evaluated? A: The 3 OCs based on their mandates, responsibilities and roles, and their desired relationship with PTI whether a direct relationship (Names) or through contracts with ICANN (Number and Protocol Parameter communities) will be responsible for evaluating the performance of their respective IANA functions (through varying community managed monitoring mechanisms). The 3 OCs will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through their community approved mechanisms for remedial actions, as appropriate to maintain expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. If you can signal your support for this text, we can post the updated FAQ. Thanks in advance, Lynn On Aug 23, 2015, at 6:13 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Lynn > Thanks for further clarifications > I have given my amendments to yr earlier text before which is a middle ground > Pls take it ad amendments to your last text > Regards > Have a nice and pleasant week- end > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 23 Aug 2015, at 04:54, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 22, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> >>> Dear aLAN, >>> You stated that Quote >>> >>> " Q: How will performance be evaluated? >>> >>> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. >>> >>> --apb (Alan Barrett" >>> Unquote >>> Pls clearly indicate from which part of the proposal from CWG or ICG such the phrase " including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions." >>> This is not true >>> Changing / choosing the IANA FUNCTION OPERATOR IS TO BE DONE THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE AS CONTAINED IN cwgFINAL PROPOSAL >>> I THREFORE DISAGREE WITH THIS PèORTION. >> >> Hi Kavouss, >> >> the CWG proposal only speaks to Names and can only speak for Names as the ICG and all the community long ago determined that the most appropriate way to manage this is through the 3 OCs. >> >> Much of the confusion seems to come from the less than precise terminology being used to describe what is in effect 3 separate IANA function implementation activities. These implementation activities are performed today by one organization but may not be in the future. When someone says IFO (or PTI) it is not clear whether they are referring to 1 - the PTI as the Naming functions IANA operator ONLY, or 2 - if they think this means the PTI is the IFO for all 3 OCs. The Numbers and PP communities mean point 1 above and see the PTI as the IFO for Names (only), and they see ICANN as the IFO for Numbers and PP, hence the suggested text in the FAQ. The fact that all 3 OC IFO's are to be housed within the PTI does not supersede each community's responsibility or rights over THEIR IFO. Hence, each OC has the responsibility to choose/change THEIR IFO using their own procedures and do not expect to rely (or be held accountable to) the CWG processes. >> >> Hope this helps clarify why I cannot agree with your statement above. >> >> Are we getting closer to closing on the FAQ text? >> >> Lynn >> >> PS. We should think about how we make these distinctions more clear - either through refining our terminology or better defining PTI. >> >> >> >> From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 18:05:20 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:05:20 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> <48E33AE4-D9C9-420A-A3C7-52AA37D07327@LStAmour.org> <9544C134-563F-4EEF-9288-E15886A98F15@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Lynn Thank you very much for the draft which is mostly based on the compromise that I have suggested few days ago and finalized by You. I have no further comments to make YOU MAY GO AHEAD NOW Thanks to all those contributed to the final draft Best Regards Kavouss , 2015-08-23 18:50 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour : > Hi Kavouss, > > thank you. I am trying to understand and find a middle ground. > > To summarize current state: > > Current proposed text : > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating > the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required > to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including > choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA > FUNCTIONS." > > I understand you to be suggesting the following text from your earlier > message: > > “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their > Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate > Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will > be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO > functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They > will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought > back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate > into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs > is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in > their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions > operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” > > I made a few edits - intent was only to clarify - not change… > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The 3 OCs based on their mandates, responsibilities and roles, and > their desired relationship with PTI whether a direct relationship (Names) > or through contracts with ICANN (Number and Protocol Parameter communities) > will be responsible for evaluating the performance of their respective IANA > functions (through varying community managed monitoring mechanisms). The 3 > OCs will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought > back through their community approved mechanisms for remedial actions, as > appropriate to maintain expected service levels. While today, the IFO for > all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it > clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA > functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual > communities. > > If you can signal your support for this text, we can post the updated FAQ. > > Thanks in advance, > Lynn > > > On Aug 23, 2015, at 6:13 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > > > Lynn > > Thanks for further clarifications > > I have given my amendments to yr earlier text before which is a middle > ground > > Pls take it ad amendments to your last text > > Regards > > Have a nice and pleasant week- end > > Kavouss > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 23 Aug 2015, at 04:54, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 22, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear aLAN, > >>> You stated that Quote > >>> > >>> " Q: How will performance be evaluated? > >>> > >>> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for > evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for > making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs > and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions > operator for their part of the IANA functions. > >>> > >>> --apb (Alan Barrett" > >>> Unquote > >>> Pls clearly indicate from which part of the proposal from CWG or ICG > such the phrase " including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator > for their part of the IANA functions." > >>> This is not true > >>> Changing / choosing the IANA FUNCTION OPERATOR IS TO BE DONE THROUGH A > SPECIFIC PROCEDURE AS CONTAINED IN cwgFINAL PROPOSAL > >>> I THREFORE DISAGREE WITH THIS PèORTION. > >> > >> Hi Kavouss, > >> > >> the CWG proposal only speaks to Names and can only speak for Names as > the ICG and all the community long ago determined that the most appropriate > way to manage this is through the 3 OCs. > >> > >> Much of the confusion seems to come from the less than precise > terminology being used to describe what is in effect 3 separate IANA > function implementation activities. These implementation activities are > performed today by one organization but may not be in the future. When > someone says IFO (or PTI) it is not clear whether they are referring to 1 - > the PTI as the Naming functions IANA operator ONLY, or 2 - if they think > this means the PTI is the IFO for all 3 OCs. The Numbers and PP > communities mean point 1 above and see the PTI as the IFO for Names (only), > and they see ICANN as the IFO for Numbers and PP, hence the suggested text > in the FAQ. The fact that all 3 OC IFO's are to be housed within the PTI > does not supersede each community's responsibility or rights over THEIR > IFO. Hence, each OC has the responsibility to choose/change THEIR IFO > using their own procedures and do not expect to rely (or be held > accountable to) the CWG processes. > >> > >> Hope this helps clarify why I cannot agree with your statement above. > >> > >> Are we getting closer to closing on the FAQ text? > >> > >> Lynn > >> > >> PS. We should think about how we make these distinctions more clear - > either through refining our terminology or better defining PTI. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Sun Aug 23 19:10:26 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:10:26 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars In-Reply-To: References: <56FEE2D4-76D7-4EB8-86DF-09055E782A7F@lstamour.org> <947194154.8846866.1440192194570.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <374755A0-B30F-4925-A533-299CB06ED0EB@frobbit.se> <51A89D05-037F-425E-8B9B-F6A4CB29F884@verisign.com> <48E33AE4-D9C9-420A-A3C7-52AA37D07327@LStAmour.org> <9544C134-563F-4EEF-9288-E15886A98F15@gmail.com> Message-ID: Excellent! Thank you everyone. Lynn On Aug 23, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Lynn > Thank you very much for the draft which is mostly based on the compromise that I have suggested few days ago and finalized by You. > I have no further comments to make > YOU MAY GO AHEAD NOW > Thanks to all those contributed to the final draft > Best Regards > Kavouss , > > 2015-08-23 18:50 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour : > Hi Kavouss, > > thank you. I am trying to understand and find a middle ground. > > To summarize current state: > > Current proposed text : > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of THEIR IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator FOR THEIR SET OF IANA FUNCTIONS." > > I understand you to be suggesting the following text from your earlier message: > > “ The 3 OCs l, Based On Their Mandate, ,areas of Responsibilities their Roles and their relation with PTI ( direct relation through separate Contracts between Number and Parameter communities or through ICANN) will be responsible, for evaluating the performance of their respective IFO functions (through various community managed monitoring mechanisms). They will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through appropriate mechanism for remedial actions, as appropriate into line with expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities.” > > I made a few edits - intent was only to clarify - not change… > > Q: How will performance be evaluated? > > A: The 3 OCs based on their mandates, responsibilities and roles, and their desired relationship with PTI whether a direct relationship (Names) or through contracts with ICANN (Number and Protocol Parameter communities) will be responsible for evaluating the performance of their respective IANA functions (through varying community managed monitoring mechanisms). The 3 OCs will also be responsible for ensuring that any deficiencies are brought back through their community approved mechanisms for remedial actions, as appropriate to maintain expected service levels. While today, the IFO for all 3 OCs is in one organization (department), the OCs have all made it clear in their proposals that the responsibility for who their IANA functions operator will be in the future will reside with the individual communities. > > If you can signal your support for this text, we can post the updated FAQ. > > Thanks in advance, > Lynn > > > On Aug 23, 2015, at 6:13 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > > Lynn > > Thanks for further clarifications > > I have given my amendments to yr earlier text before which is a middle ground > > Pls take it ad amendments to your last text > > Regards > > Have a nice and pleasant week- end > > Kavouss > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 23 Aug 2015, at 04:54, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 22, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear aLAN, > >>> You stated that Quote > >>> > >>> " Q: How will performance be evaluated? > >>> > >>> A: The three Operating Communities (OCs) are responsible for evaluating the performance of their parts of the IANA functions, and for making whatever decisions are required to ensure their community's needs and expectations are met, including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions. > >>> > >>> --apb (Alan Barrett" > >>> Unquote > >>> Pls clearly indicate from which part of the proposal from CWG or ICG such the phrase " including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions." > >>> This is not true > >>> Changing / choosing the IANA FUNCTION OPERATOR IS TO BE DONE THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE AS CONTAINED IN cwgFINAL PROPOSAL > >>> I THREFORE DISAGREE WITH THIS PèORTION. > >> > >> Hi Kavouss, > >> > >> the CWG proposal only speaks to Names and can only speak for Names as the ICG and all the community long ago determined that the most appropriate way to manage this is through the 3 OCs. > >> > >> Much of the confusion seems to come from the less than precise terminology being used to describe what is in effect 3 separate IANA function implementation activities. These implementation activities are performed today by one organization but may not be in the future. When someone says IFO (or PTI) it is not clear whether they are referring to 1 - the PTI as the Naming functions IANA operator ONLY, or 2 - if they think this means the PTI is the IFO for all 3 OCs. The Numbers and PP communities mean point 1 above and see the PTI as the IFO for Names (only), and they see ICANN as the IFO for Numbers and PP, hence the suggested text in the FAQ. The fact that all 3 OC IFO's are to be housed within the PTI does not supersede each community's responsibility or rights over THEIR IFO. Hence, each OC has the responsibility to choose/change THEIR IFO using their own procedures and do not expect to rely (or be held accountable to) the CWG processes. > >> > >> Hope this helps clarify why I cannot agree with your statement above. > >> > >> Are we getting closer to closing on the FAQ text? > >> > >> Lynn > >> > >> PS. We should think about how we make these distinctions more clear - either through refining our terminology or better defining PTI. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Aug 24 12:03:56 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of ICG FAQ Message-ID: <010b01d0de64$f6a6b240$e3f416c0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The ICG FAQ has been updated and posted: https://www.ianacg.org/?p=734 In addition, this has also been posted on the ICG social media accounts here: Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/635783587338432512 FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1692304380998194 Please share with your communities! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Aug 27 14:46:32 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - draft Message-ID: <026001d0e0d7$2b558600$82009200$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Attached and linked below, please find the first draft of the public comment matrix. Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1EmxL66 This matrix contains all the public comments (23) received to-date, separated by questions as well as a few topic tabs. You may navigate to each sheet using the labeled tabs at the bottom of your screen. Please note that some comments are lengthy - to view the entire content of the cell, you may have to double click then scroll. In addition, topic tabs may contain excerpts from answers to other questions. The full submission for each submitter is available for download (.pdf) on the archive here: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal- public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ . The secretariat will be compiling and updating this matrix during the public comment period. Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, and edits. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-public-comment-matrix-v1.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 67363 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Aug 27 15:22:48 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:22:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - draft In-Reply-To: <026001d0e0d7$2b558600$82009200$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <4204311.349.1440688968626.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Thanks Jennifer for a useful/usable draft of the public comment matrix. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 27 Août 2015 16:46:32 Objet: [Internal-cg] ICG public comment matrix - draft Dear ICG members, Attached and linked below, please find the first draft of the public comment matrix. Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1EmxL66 This matrix contains all the public comments (23) received to-date, separated by questions as well as a few topic tabs. You may navigate to each sheet using the labeled tabs at the bottom of your screen. Please note that some comments are lengthy – to view the entire content of the cell, you may have to double click then scroll. In addition, topic tabs may contain excerpts from answers to other questions. The full submission for each submitter is available for download (.pdf) on the archive here: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-public-archive-of-submitted-comments/ . The secretariat will be compiling and updating this matrix during the public comment period. Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, and edits. 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 Thu Aug 27 15:50:13 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance Message-ID: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, For logistic planning purposes, please let the Secretariat know if you are not going to be attending the September 18-19 face-to-face meeting in LA in person. Remote participation will be available, further details will be circulated closer to the meeting. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Aug 27 15:53:41 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:53:41 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance In-Reply-To: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> References: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <57090FF4-3CDE-478E-A10B-38F507709D58@gmail.com> Dear Jennifer Tks I will attend Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Aug 2015, at 17:50, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear All, > > For logistic planning purposes, please let the Secretariat know if you are not going to be attending the September 18-19 face-to-face meeting in LA in person. > > Remote participation will be available, further details will be circulated closer to the meeting. > > 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 paf at frobbit.se Thu Aug 27 16:33:36 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:33:36 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance In-Reply-To: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> References: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: On 27 Aug 2015, at 17:50, Jennifer Chung wrote: > For logistic planning purposes, please let the Secretariat know if you are not going to be attending the September 18-19 face-to-face meeting in LA in person. Yes, present in person. 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 glaser at cgi.br Thu Aug 27 17:30:36 2015 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:30:36 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance In-Reply-To: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> References: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <55DF493C.2080402@cgi.br> Present in person. Hartmut ===================================== On 8/27/15 12:50 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear All, > > For logistic planning purposes, please let the Secretariat know if you > are not going to be attending the September 18-19 face-to-face meeting > in LA in person. > > Remote participation will be available, further details will be > circulated closer to the meeting. > > 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 keith at internetnz.net.nz Thu Aug 27 19:17:35 2015 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:17:35 +1200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance In-Reply-To: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> References: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <55DF624F.1050404@internetnz.net.nz> Hi Jennifer, I will be present in person in LA. Cheers Keith On 28/08/2015 3:50 a.m., Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > For logistic planning purposes, please let the Secretariat know if you > are not going to be attending the September 18-19 face-to-face meeting > in LA in person. > > Remote participation will be available, further details will be > circulated closer to the meeting. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Aug 28 10:14:30 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:14:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance In-Reply-To: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <19546007.442.1440756852103.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> Dear Jennifer, not being able to travel to Los Angeles at that time, I will contribute to the meeting through remote participation. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 27 Août 2015 17:50:13 Objet: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance Dear All, For logistic planning purposes, please let the Secretariat know if you are not going to be attending the September 18-19 face-to-face meeting in LA in person. Remote participation will be available, further details will be circulated closer to the meeting. Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mbashir at mbash.net Fri Aug 28 14:57:16 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:57:16 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance In-Reply-To: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> References: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Present in person. Kind Regards, Mohamed > On 27 Aug 2015, at 18:50, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear All, > > For logistic planning purposes, please let the Secretariat know if you are not going to be attending the September 18-19 face-to-face meeting in LA in person. > > Remote participation will be available, further details will be circulated closer to the meeting. > > 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 Fri Aug 28 21:01:21 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] New social media posts from the ICG Message-ID: <042701d0e1d4$b3f7eb30$1be7c190$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Here are the new tweets from the ICG twitter account reminding people to send in public comments: EN: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/637368152519778304 FR: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/637368214482198528 ES: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/637368293024735233 RU: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/637368333155835904 ZH: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/637368394279460868 PT: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/637368430937645057 AR: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/637368529784860672 Please share with your communities - thank you! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Sat Aug 29 09:11:04 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:11:04 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance In-Reply-To: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> References: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <20150829091104.5267539.5365.25315@yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Sat Aug 29 15:10:50 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:10:50 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG September 18-19 face-to-face meeting - in person attendance In-Reply-To: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> References: <027e01d0e0e0$10defe10$329cfa30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <791B4069-F8B9-427C-9B42-64666B5F18C9@godaddy.com> Jennifer and Colleagues- I have a travel conflict and will NOT be present in Los Angeles. I will participate remotely if able. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:50, Jennifer Chung > wrote: Dear All, For logistic planning purposes, please let the Secretariat know if you are not going to be attending the September 18-19 face-to-face meeting in LA in person. Remote participation will be available, further details will be circulated closer to the meeting. 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 epusp75 at gmail.com Mon Aug 31 15:04:56 2015 From: epusp75 at gmail.com (Demi Getschko) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:04:56 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field In-Reply-To: <4F2D9648-41ED-46C4-B463-A94B3F4F93D8@frobbit.se> References: <025401d0c9e0$1ee11870$5ca34950$@icgsec.asia> <25223642.949.1438178712857.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADCF74@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <20A6C3A3-06A3-48E3-A306-41425149F70D@cooperw.in> <82A385EB-ADDC-47CB-BEE6-4CD3B6A695AB@vigilsec.com> <4F2D9648-41ED-46C4-B463-A94B3F4F93D8@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <55E46D18.2040001@gmail.com> Russ +1.. UK is an old and well known exception... Better to go thru the most used and frequented way in this issue... demi On 07/29/2015 06:18 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > Note that cctlds are not 3166. For example, the cctld is UK while 3166 > is GB. We did choose to use cctld. > > Patrik > > On 29 jul 2015, at 19:01, Russ Housley > wrote: > >> I can live with this, but I would prefer the label on the field to be >> "ISO 3166 Country Code", as that is the term used by ISO. See >> http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes >> >> Russ >> >> >> On Jul 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> The point of this field is for us to be able to report on the >>> geographic breadth of commenters. I would not like to create even >>> more work for the secretariat by having to analyze a free-form field >>> and decide whether two entires are the same country or not. So I >>> hope we can find a different compromise. >>> >>> Patrik and I chatted and came up with this proposal: >>> >>> Use a drop-down menu. >>> Label it “Country/Economy”. >>> Use the ccTLD list as the source data: http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD >>> List the entries as - . E.g., >>> the entry for Albania would read “Albania - AL”. >>> Make the field optional. >>> >>> Is there anyone who cannot agree to this compromise? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Martin Boyle >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jean-Jacques, >>>> >>>> I agree that the two letter code is meaningless to most people >>>> (although I would hope that a reasonable proportion of the citizens >>>> of a country would know what their local code might be). But I >>>> prefer the solution identified in the discussion - and which I >>>> thought got good traction - that we leave it to the respondent to >>>> complete, rather than provide drop-down menus. I am aware that the >>>> lists can be erratic (including missing off the Channel Islands, >>>> for example). >>>> >>>> I'd also note that there are cases where listing more than one >>>> country might not be appropriate, so a box is easier to use than >>>> drop-down menus there, too. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >>>> Sent: 29 July 2015 15:05 >>>> To: Jennifer Chung >>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 21: Action items and decisions >>>> taken >>>> >>>> Under Action Items below, I do not agree to a switch to ONLY the >>>> 2-letter ISO code, as this is not familiar for most users of the >>>> Internet. >>>> Instead, and for practical reasons, I request we have BOTH the >>>> 2-letter ISO code AND the "country/economy" name. >>>> >>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Jennifer Chung" > >>>> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 29 Juillet 2015 11:22:40 >>>> Objet: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 21: Action items and decisions taken >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find the two lists for ICG Call 21 below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Action items: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1: Secretariat to correct figure (percentage of Numbers-related >>>> transactions) in the IANA transactions graphic in combined proposal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Boyle to extract and send wording to the internal-cg list >>>> regarding paragraph 11. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. Cooper to ask XPLANE to add details for the Names portion in the >>>> IANA graphic (slide 28 in the webinar deck). Cooper to draft some >>>> text accompanying the graphic for additional clarity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. Secretariat to create a downloadable fillable version of the >>>> public comment web form. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. Secretariat to ensure that latest version of the public comment >>>> web materials is reflected on the public comment web form and ICG >>>> public comment web page. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6. Secretariat to change web form field to Country/Economy and >>>> order them by ISO 3166 2-letter country code. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 7. Niebel to send in suggested edit to the internal-cg mailing list >>>> to the Q&A matrix regarding IETF section 2.3 and 2.5. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Decisions Taken: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. ICG members to send in any edits to the ICG FAQ by Friday July >>>> 31 with the aim to finalize document on the internal-cg mailing >>>> list mid next week. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Edits to language in flux in paragraph 62 of the combined >>>> proposal to be parked until after CCWG-Accountability discussions >>>> on this issue concludes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. ICG members to send any last comments regarding the Executive >>>> Summary, ICG report, public comment web site materials to the >>>> internal-cg mailing list before Thursday 30 July 07:00 UTC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. The ICG public comment period will go forward as planned to be >>>> launched on Friday 31 July. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. ICG Communications plan for the public comment period launch >>>> will be shared on the internal-cg mailing list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6. Minutes approval to be taken on the internal-cg mailing list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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