From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jul  1 00:50:52 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 00:50:52 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
In-Reply-To: <998D4C60-D1EC-4ED8-9588-8F2305FCF887@cooperw.in>
References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net>
	<998D4C60-D1EC-4ED8-9588-8F2305FCF887@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <c80c219130dd43fd9eca0c544fa2549f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> copied an extract below). In our assessment of this proposal, we may well
> conclude that the detail provided there is sufficient. Or we may not, but in
> any event it is incumbent upon us to assess what we've already received
> before deciding if we have a question to ask. We need a bit of time to re-
> review the other two proposals as well.

The point is not for us to decide whether the detail was sufficient but simply to incorporate into the record a higher-level (ICG-level) recognition of the fact (already documented in the CWG proposal) that alternatives were considered and accepted or rejected for specific reasons. 


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul  1 11:06:07 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:06:07 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
In-Reply-To: <1549574450.3261154.1435702710730.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <E5C02160-11AA-42DF-BC97-7F2D36B221B8@karrenberg.net>
	<1549574450.3261154.1435702710730.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4705bba139f5492bb6a831194147b1a1@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa ..
I did not know a decision was taken to " put aside the idea of asking the communities anything until we have a chance to review or re-review what they’ve already sent us " ..
It's a fair point .. I also agree ..

Yet, with respect to the public record, we may still want (whenever appropriate at a later stage) to give the OCs the chance to add any material they feel should be included to the public record, of course in addition to the submitted proposals ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:19 AM
To: Daniel Karrenberg; Alissa Cooper
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"

All,
Alissa has just reinforced my suggestion during the 25th June which Milton also alluded to. I support Alissa's analysis, I think we should proceed along the line of her suggested approach.

Mary Uduma




On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 4:41 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel at karrenberg.net<mailto:daniel at karrenberg.net>> wrote:

I support this approach.


---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 30.06.2015, at 19:21, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>
> I think we need to stick to our decision from the end of the meeting, which was to put aside the idea of asking the communities anything until we have a chance to review or re-review what they’ve already sent us. For example, I just did a quick read of Section VI.A of the names proposal, which contains an analysis of alternatives considered (see in particular page 48, of which I’ve copied an extract below). In our assessment of this proposal, we may well conclude that the detail provided there is sufficient. Or we may not, but in any event it is incumbent upon us to assess what we’ve already received before deciding if we have a question to ask. We need a bit of time to re-review the other two proposals as well.
>
> Alissa
>
>
> —
>
> The move from seven potential models to two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model was iterative over a series of sessions. In one session, after explanation of legal counsel’s findings, two models: the internal trust and the external trust, were deemed unsuitable to meet the CWG-Stewardship’s requirements because the structures were not necessarily recognized legally outside of the U.S. Upon conclusion of these sessions, the CWG-Stewardship also agreed to defer further consideration of the “Contract Co.” model (in part, because it did not receive sufficient support after the first public comment period), until the viability of the remaining models could be further considered. In addition, the CWG- Stewardship agreed to defer further consideration of the fully internal model or the standalone IANA hybrid model. The CWG-Stewardship agreed that the remaining
> models: two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model (the legal separation model and the functional separate model) required further research on the part of legal counsel before the CWG-Stewardship could make a determination.
>
> Following the meetings in Istanbul, the CWG-Stewardship, in consultation with its
> independent legal counsel, held various meetings and reviewed various memos from its
> legal counsel to determine which of the two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid
> model – the legal separation model and the functional separation model – would be
> recommended. The CWG-Stewardship determined that the legal separation model was
> preferred because it would establish PTI as a separate legal entity at the outset, allowing for
> possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. In addition, the legal separation
> model allowed for a contract between ICANN and PTI. With that decision reached, the
> CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this
> model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues related to the model.
>
> The consideration for the CWG-Stewardship, with consultation from its independent legal
> counsel, became whether to support a functionally separate model or a legally separate
> model. The group eventually chose the legally separate model because it would establish
> the separate PTI entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the
> future, if necessary. With that compromise in place, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus
> to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel
> assisted in addressing governance issues

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150701/3cb50ed7/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul  1 11:50:06 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:50:06 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
In-Reply-To: <998D4C60-D1EC-4ED8-9588-8F2305FCF887@cooperw.in>
References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net>
	<998D4C60-D1EC-4ED8-9588-8F2305FCF887@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AB521B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Hi all,

In the light of Alissa's comment below, which seems to have general support, I have taken advantage of a minor revision to the Names OC pre-assessment (circulated on 24 June) to note that the proposal had been adopted by the Chartering Organisations to add a section on consideration of alternatives.

For lack of imagination, I included it in A.4. on obtaining community consensus.  I'm sure it could be included elsewhere.  I have cut-and-pasted extensively from the final proposal pp 46-8.

All amendments are highlighted in tracked-changes.

Happy to receive comments on the draft.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 30 June 2015 18:21
To: Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"

I think we need to stick to our decision from the end of the meeting, which was to put aside the idea of asking the communities anything until we have a chance to review or re-review what they've already sent us. For example, I just did a quick read of Section VI.A of the names proposal, which contains an analysis of alternatives considered (see in particular page 48, of which I've copied an extract below). In our assessment of this proposal, we may well conclude that the detail provided there is sufficient. Or we may not, but in any event it is incumbent upon us to assess what we've already received before deciding if we have a question to ask. We need a bit of time to re-review the other two proposals as well.

Alissa


-

The move from seven potential models to two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model was iterative over a series of sessions. In one session, after explanation of legal counsel's findings, two models: the internal trust and the external trust, were deemed unsuitable to meet the CWG-Stewardship's requirements because the structures were not necessarily recognized legally outside of the U.S. Upon conclusion of these sessions, the CWG-Stewardship also agreed to defer further consideration of the "Contract Co." model (in part, because it did not receive sufficient support after the first public comment period), until the viability of the remaining models could be further considered. In addition, the CWG- Stewardship agreed to defer further consideration of the fully internal model or the standalone IANA hybrid model. The CWG-Stewardship agreed that the remaining
models: two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model (the legal separation model and the functional separate model) required further research on the part of legal counsel before the CWG-Stewardship could make a determination.

Following the meetings in Istanbul, the CWG-Stewardship, in consultation with its independent legal counsel, held various meetings and reviewed various memos from its legal counsel to determine which of the two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model - the legal separation model and the functional separation model - would be recommended. The CWG-Stewardship determined that the legal separation model was preferred because it would establish PTI as a separate legal entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. In addition, the legal separation model allowed for a contract between ICANN and PTI. With that decision reached, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues related to the model.

The consideration for the CWG-Stewardship, with consultation from its independent legal counsel, became whether to support a functionally separate model or a legally separate model. The group eventually chose the legally separate model because it would establish the separate PTI entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. With that compromise in place, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues _______________________________________________
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: names-proposal-preassessment-draft-v2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 66048 bytes
Desc: names-proposal-preassessment-draft-v2.doc
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150701/4ddf24f9/attachment.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul  1 16:45:46 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:45:46 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support
Message-ID: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

A reminder to please indicate to the Secretariat whether you will need
travel support for ICG F2F 6 in LA (17-20 Sept) by Friday, July 3 2015.

 

If you have already requested travel support, you will have received a
confirmation email from the Secretariat. Please let me know if you have any
questions.

 

Best Regards,

Jennifer

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 9:57 PM
To: 'ICG'
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support

 

Dear ICG Members,

 

ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 -
Saturday 19 September 2015.

 

In accordance with
<https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20
> ICANN's travel support guidelines
<https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20
>  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 (17-20 September) 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 <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>  by Friday 3 July 2015.

 

In reference to Alissa's earlier email, please also let the Secretariat know
if you will require any assistance with visa processing.

 

Thanks,

 

Best regards,

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150702/2ee4d44a/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul  1 16:52:58 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:52:58 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadline for comments on the ICG
	Communications Strategy documents is today 1 July, 23:59 UTC
Message-ID: <00b701d0b41e$68e43830$3aaca890$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

A reminder to all regarding Action Item 2 from the 25 June ICG wrap up
session: ICG Members send comments to the internal-cg mailing list regarding
ICG communications strategy document v4 (http://bit.ly/1BEgQuc) by 1 July
2015 23:59 UTC.

 

Please send all comments on the to the internal-cg mailing list.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150702/b398f204/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul  1 17:04:27 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 01:04:27 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Live interpretation services for ICG Call #19
Message-ID: <00cf01d0b420$01e3e4d0$05abae70$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please be advised that AR and ZH live streaming interpretation for the
upcoming ICG Call #19 (8 July 2015 12:00-14:30 UTC, time conversion here:
http://bit.ly/1Ae3rJ0) will only be available for the first 90 minutes.
Thereafter, remote participants on those two audio streams are kindly
requested to join the Adobe Connect virtual meeting room or any of the other
language audio streams for the remaining 1 hour.  For further details please
refer to the public announcement here:
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/.

 

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused, thank you!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150702/daafa038/attachment.html>

From glaser at cgi.br  Wed Jul  1 17:29:34 2015
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:29:34 -0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel
 support
In-Reply-To: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <5594237E.1070509@cgi.br>


Hi Jennifer,

I need travel support ...!

Thanks

Hartmut

===================================
On 7/1/15 1:45 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> A reminder to please indicate to the Secretariat whether you will need 
> travel support for ICG F2F 6 in LA (17-20 Sept) by *_Friday, July 3 
> 2015_*.
>
> If you have already requested travel support, you will have received a 
> confirmation email from the Secretariat. Please let me know if you 
> have any questions.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jennifer
>
> *From:* Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 22, 2015 9:57 PM
> *To:* 'ICG'
> *Cc:* admin at icgsec.asia
> *Subject:* ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support
>
> Dear ICG Members,
>
> ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 – 
> Saturday 19 September 2015.
>
> In accordance 
> with<https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20>ICANN's 
> travel support guidelines 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20> 
> 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 (17-20 September) 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 youplease to flag any travel support requests you may have 
> using admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> by *_Friday _**_3 
> July 2015_*.
>
> In reference to Alissa’s earlier email, please also let the 
> Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150701/83b0cc90/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Jul  2 01:42:00 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:42:00 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel
	support
In-Reply-To: <5594237E.1070509@cgi.br>
References: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>
	<5594237E.1070509@cgi.br>
Message-ID: <001201d0b468$4ce07000$e6a15000$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Hartmut,

 

Confirming receipt of your travel support request (flight and hotel
accommodation) for the LA F2F meeting.

 

ICANN constituency travel will be in touch regarding further details.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Hartmut Richard Glaser [mailto:glaser at cgi.br] 
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 1:30 AM
To: Jennifer Chung; 'ICG'
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel
support

 


Hi Jennifer,

I need travel support ...!

Thanks

Hartmut

===================================

On 7/1/15 1:45 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:

Dear All,

 

A reminder to please indicate to the Secretariat whether you will need
travel support for ICG F2F 6 in LA (17-20 Sept) by Friday, July 3 2015.

 

If you have already requested travel support, you will have received a
confirmation email from the Secretariat. Please let me know if you have any
questions.

 

Best Regards,

Jennifer

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 9:57 PM
To: 'ICG'
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> 
Subject: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support

 

Dear ICG Members,

 

ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 -
Saturday 19 September 2015.

 

In accordance with
<https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20
> ICANN's travel support guidelines
<https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20
>  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 (17-20 September) 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 <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>  by Friday 3 July 2015.

 

In reference to Alissa's earlier email, please also let the Secretariat know
if you will require any assistance with visa processing.

 

Thanks,

 

Best regards,

Jennifer






_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org> 
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150702/eafa7fdf/attachment.html>

From glaser at cgi.br  Thu Jul  2 02:25:30 2015
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:25:30 -0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel
 support
In-Reply-To: <001201d0b468$4ce07000$e6a15000$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>
	<5594237E.1070509@cgi.br>
	<001201d0b468$4ce07000$e6a15000$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <5594A11A.4050800@cgi.br>


Thanks Jennifer ...!

=================================
On 01/07/15 22:42, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>
> Dear Hartmut,
>
> Confirming receipt of your travel support request (flight and hotel 
> accommodation) for the LA F2F meeting.
>
> ICANN constituency travel will be in touch regarding further details.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jennifer
>
> *From:*Hartmut Richard Glaser [mailto:glaser at cgi.br]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 2, 2015 1:30 AM
> *To:* Jennifer Chung; 'ICG'
> *Cc:* admin at icgsec.asia
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - 
> travel support
>
>
> Hi Jennifer,
>
> I need travel support ...!
>
> Thanks
>
> Hartmut
>
> ===================================
>
> On 7/1/15 1:45 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>
>     Dear All,
>
>     A reminder to please indicate to the Secretariat whether you will
>     need travel support for ICG F2F 6 in LA (17-20 Sept) by *_Friday,
>     July 3 2015_*.
>
>     If you have already requested travel support, you will have
>     received a confirmation email from the Secretariat. Please let me
>     know if you have any questions.
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     Jennifer
>
>     *From:* Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
>     *Sent:* Monday, June 22, 2015 9:57 PM
>     *To:* 'ICG'
>     *Cc:* admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia>
>     *Subject:* ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support
>
>     Dear ICG Members,
>
>     ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday
>     18 – Saturday 19 September 2015.
>
>     In accordance
>     with<https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20>ICANN's
>     travel support guidelines
>     <https://community.icann.org/display/trvlconstit/Constituency+Travel+Home%20>
>     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 (17-20
>     September) 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 youplease to flag any travel support requests you may
>     have using admin at icgsec.asia <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> by
>     *_Friday 3 July 2015_*.
>
>     In reference to Alissa’s earlier email, please also let the
>     Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa
>     processing.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     Jennifer
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Internal-cg mailing list
>
>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org  <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>
>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150701/0ca072fa/attachment.html>

From kuoweiwu at gmail.com  Thu Jul  2 15:56:22 2015
From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 23:56:22 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] This is my about iana.org
Message-ID: <A52DACB6-05CD-4147-BE02-B1FA8EFE71A8@gmail.com>

Dear All,

This is my comment about iana.org <http://iana.org/> :


"ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> and the IANA trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's performance of the IANA functions. The board recognizes that the community is considering different models for the maintenance of the iana.org <http://iana.org/> domain name and the related trademarks.

The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the  intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate.

It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the operational communities.”

Thanks.

Kuo Wu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150702/0787976c/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Jul  2 20:51:30 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 13:51:30 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final
Message-ID: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>

The attached version of the NTIA response contains edits to reflect our F2F discussion. It also has the placeholder filled in that references the CCWG response.

I plan to send this after 23:59 UTC on July 5 unless I hear objections.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NTIA-letter-response-v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20566 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150702/76cd9a5f/attachment.docx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul  3 00:15:54 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 08:15:54 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Interpreter availability for the upcoming ICG calls #
	20 - 26
Message-ID: <009b01d0b525$6fff63d0$4ffe2b70$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

In addition to the previous email regarding interpreter availability for ICG
Call #19 - Wednesday, 8 July at 12:00-14:30 UTC (time converter here:
http://bit.ly/1Ae3rJ0), please find the current status for the interpreters'
available for ICG Calls #20 - 26.  Languages that only have one interpreter
working will have to stop after 90 minutes.  Please note that availability
may change, and will be further announced on list one week prior to the
call.

Please let me know if there are any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

----
• ICG Call #20 – Wednesday, 15 July at 19:00-21:00 UTC (time converter
here: http://bit.ly/1GqeGdv)
-- AR, FR and ZH will have to stop after 90 minutes
-- ES, PT and RU confirmed for the entire duration of the call.

• ICG Call #21 – Wednesday, 29 July at 05:00-07:00 UTC (time converter
here: http://bit.ly/1RjgiMb)
-- AR and RU will not be available. 
-- ZH will have to stop after 90 minutes.
-- ES, PT and FR confirmed for the entire duration of the call. 

• ICG Call #22 – Wednesday, 12 August at 11:00-12:30 UTC (time converter
here: http://bit.ly/1ejHSgq)
-- FR and RU will not be available.
-- ZH, AR and PT will stop after 90 minutes.
-- ES confirmed for the entire duration of the call. 

• ICG Call #23 – Wednesday, 26 August 19:00-20:30 UTC (time converter
here: http://bit.ly/1GpPs21)
-- RU will not be available.
-- AR and ZH will stop after 90 minutes. 
-- ES, FR and PT confirmed for the entire duration of the call.

• ICG Call #24 – Wednesday, 9 September 05:00-06:30 UTC (time converter
here: http://bit.ly/1GaLWp3)
-- RU, AR and PT will not be available.
-- ZH will stop after 90 minutes. 
-- ES, FR and ZH confirmed for the entire duration of the call.
  
• ICG Call #25 – Wednesday, 23 September 11:00-12:30 UTC (time converter
here: http://bit.ly/1MHzGRJ)
-- All languages are available. 

• ICG Call #26 – Wednesday, 7 October 19:00-20:30 UTC (time converter
here: http://bit.ly/1LdRraO)
-- ZH, AR, PT and FR will stop after 90 minutes. 
-- ES and RU confirmed for the entire duration of the call.




From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Fri Jul  3 10:18:36 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 12:18:36 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final
In-Reply-To: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
References: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <5596617C.40502@ripe.net>

I support this response as long as it is congruent with the CWG response.

Daniel

On 2.07.15 22:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> The attached version of the NTIA response contains edits to reflect our F2F discussion. It also has the placeholder filled in that references the CCWG response.
> 
> I plan to send this after 23:59 UTC on July 5 unless I hear objections.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 


From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Fri Jul  3 14:11:17 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 22:11:17 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final
In-Reply-To: <5596617C.40502@ripe.net>
References: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
	<5596617C.40502@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <91EAA9A5-1647-4973-9C42-293D86B9DADC@t-online.de>

I also agree. Shouldn't congruence be seen with the CCWG response to the NTIA?

Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

> Am 03.07.2015 um 18:18 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
> 
> I support this response as long as it is congruent with the CWG response.
> 
> Daniel
> 
>> On 2.07.15 22:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> The attached version of the NTIA response contains edits to reflect our F2F discussion. It also has the placeholder filled in that references the CCWG response.
>> 
>> I plan to send this after 23:59 UTC on July 5 unless I hear objections.
>> 
>> 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 paf at frobbit.se  Fri Jul  3 15:11:14 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 17:11:14 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final
In-Reply-To: <91EAA9A5-1647-4973-9C42-293D86B9DADC@t-online.de>
References: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
	<5596617C.40502@ripe.net>
	<91EAA9A5-1647-4973-9C42-293D86B9DADC@t-online.de>
Message-ID: <FBC1FDCC-3579-4FF4-82BA-00BCCAC299E2@frobbit.se>

FWIW, we chairs (specifically Alissa) have been in close contact with CCWG chairs when working on development of this note. We as chairs have sent comments to each other regarding wording so that, as you say, we do reach a situation where our respective notes are in congruence.

That said, we are two separate groups, and have different charters, so two different responses are both natural and in order.

Your explicit request that congruence is required is noted.

   Patrik

On 3 Jul 2015, at 16:11, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:

> I also agree. Shouldn't congruence be seen with the CCWG response to the NTIA?
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Sent from my personal phone
>
>> Am 03.07.2015 um 18:18 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
>>
>> I support this response as long as it is congruent with the CWG response.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>> On 2.07.15 22:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> The attached version of the NTIA response contains edits to reflect our F2F discussion. It also has the placeholder filled in that references the CCWG response.
>>>
>>> I plan to send this after 23:59 UTC on July 5 unless I hear objections.
>>>
>>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150703/834f2f31/attachment.sig>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Fri Jul  3 21:49:25 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 21:49:25 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final
In-Reply-To: <FBC1FDCC-3579-4FF4-82BA-00BCCAC299E2@frobbit.se>
References: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
	<5596617C.40502@ripe.net>	<91EAA9A5-1647-4973-9C42-293D86B9DADC@t-online.de>
	<FBC1FDCC-3579-4FF4-82BA-00BCCAC299E2@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <4bd94bc2a7a54b659832a197876f2ae0@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thank you all ..

I'm fine with the letter .. I'm also attaching CCWG's response to the NTIA as shared on the CCWG mailing list .. I don't see discrepancy, apart from the minor difference highlighted in capital letters in the excerpts below .. 

CCWG Response:
"CCWG-Accountability will aim to get that final proposal to our chartering organizations by October, hoping to receive their approvals by the conclusion of the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin in late October. If all goes as planned, we could submit our final proposal to the ICANN Board by NOVEMBER, along with bylaws changes that are ready for adoption by the Board."

ICG Response:
"The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to NTIA via the ICANN Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in OCTOBER."

If our unit is month then late October or early November may not be an issue .. 

On the other hand, if I read the last sentence correctly, I think it needs to be slightly modified as highlighted in capital below:
"This would imply that at the earliest the transition could BE completeD in the July 2016 time frame."

Hope you find this useful ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 5:11 PM
To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final

FWIW, we chairs (specifically Alissa) have been in close contact with CCWG chairs when working on development of this note. We as chairs have sent comments to each other regarding wording so that, as you say, we do reach a situation where our respective notes are in congruence.

That said, we are two separate groups, and have different charters, so two different responses are both natural and in order.

Your explicit request that congruence is required is noted.

   Patrik

On 3 Jul 2015, at 16:11, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:

> I also agree. Shouldn't congruence be seen with the CCWG response to the NTIA?
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Sent from my personal phone
>
>> Am 03.07.2015 um 18:18 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
>>
>> I support this response as long as it is congruent with the CWG response.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>> On 2.07.15 22:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> The attached version of the NTIA response contains edits to reflect our F2F discussion. It also has the placeholder filled in that references the CCWG response.
>>>
>>> I plan to send this after 23:59 UTC on July 5 unless I hear objections.
>>>
>>> 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: CCWG_NTIA_reply.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 51408 bytes
Desc: CCWG_NTIA_reply.pdf
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150703/738b1fe9/attachment.pdf>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Fri Jul  3 22:32:55 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 22:32:55 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary
In-Reply-To: <74AE7551-EF49-4DC5-8F27-93C7A6E68657@cooperw.in>
References: <11c51a8eaaf04fefb3964ab19d53ddb5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<74AE7551-EF49-4DC5-8F27-93C7A6E68657@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <906d1446f9f54abe84d1eecf6c2546c1@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Please find attached and on Dropbox some minor edits and a few remarks .. I mainly moved, from the process part, everything that has to do with the assessment, as I found it to be redundant with the assessment part ..
Thoughts?

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:14 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary

Thank you for getting these edits done this week.

Alissa

On Jun 25, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:


I have added as much to the Exec Summary as I can.
It is available in Dropbox inside a new folder I created called "Combined Proposal"

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150703/4119c964/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v2 - MI.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 347136 bytes
Desc: combined-proposal-v2 - MI.doc
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150703/4119c964/attachment.doc>

From xl at cnnic.cn  Sun Jul  5 06:59:38 2015
From: xl at cnnic.cn (Xiaodong Lee)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 14:59:38 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final
In-Reply-To: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
References: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <07633E2D-5359-4AB2-BB15-08B13362EBA9@cnnic.cn>

I support this response. Thx a lot for Chairs' hard work.

Best Regards,
--
Dr. Xiaodong Lee


> 在 2015年7月3日，04:51，Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 写道：
> 
> The attached version of the NTIA response contains edits to reflect our F2F discussion. It also has the placeholder filled in that references the CCWG response.
> 
> I plan to send this after 23:59 UTC on July 5 unless I hear objections.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> 
> <NTIA-letter-response-v2.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 



From housley at vigilsec.com  Sun Jul  5 16:50:03 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 12:50:03 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final
In-Reply-To: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
References: <975681CA-4E5C-49ED-AF81-1E278564A158@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <2CE3C3BC-8174-495C-81C0-388A81B4C263@vigilsec.com>

Alissa:

I suggest a few very minor editorial changes:

OLD:  As noted in your letter and discussed during ICANN 53, ...
NEW:  As noted in your letter and discussions during ICANN 53, ...

OLD: ... the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, ...
NEW: ... the ICG’s assessment of the names community proposal, ...

OLD: ... other aspects of the names proposal ...
NEW: ... other aspects of the names community proposal ...

Russ

From housley at vigilsec.com  Sun Jul  5 17:18:07 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 13:18:07 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] My Assessment of the Names Community Proposal
In-Reply-To: <009b01d0b525$6fff63d0$4ffe2b70$@icgsec.asia>
References: <009b01d0b525$6fff63d0$4ffe2b70$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <CE6F6A65-9343-4C91-AECD-F0947A7D1020@vigilsec.com>

Here is my assessment (using the individual process and proposal assessment sheet).  Here is my bottom line:

The CWG-Stewardship proposal achieved consensus, but it is not complete.  It depends on the mechanisms for the accountability of ICANN that are being developed in the CCWG-Accountability.  A complete review is not possible until this work is stable.

Russ

P.S. Jennifer, please put this document in dropbox.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Housley-Names-proposal-assessment-sheet.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 34816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150705/f9e18327/attachment.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Sun Jul  5 18:04:35 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 02:04:35 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] My Assessment of the Names Community Proposal
In-Reply-To: <CE6F6A65-9343-4C91-AECD-F0947A7D1020@vigilsec.com>
References: <009b01d0b525$6fff63d0$4ffe2b70$@icgsec.asia>
	<CE6F6A65-9343-4C91-AECD-F0947A7D1020@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <005401d0b74d$0fef4c10$2fcde430$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Russ,

Your assessment is now available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1H1ftlw. 

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ
Housley
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 1:18 AM
To: ICG
Subject: [Internal-cg] My Assessment of the Names Community Proposal

Here is my assessment (using the individual process and proposal assessment
sheet).  Here is my bottom line:

The CWG-Stewardship proposal achieved consensus, but it is not complete.  It
depends on the mechanisms for the accountability of ICANN that are being
developed in the CCWG-Accountability.  A complete review is not possible
until this work is stable.

Russ

P.S. Jennifer, please put this document in dropbox.





From jen at icgsec.asia  Sun Jul  5 22:02:55 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:02:55 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] My Assessment of the Names Community Proposal
In-Reply-To: <CE6F6A65-9343-4C91-AECD-F0947A7D1020@vigilsec.com>
References: <009b01d0b525$6fff63d0$4ffe2b70$@icgsec.asia>
	<CE6F6A65-9343-4C91-AECD-F0947A7D1020@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <005501d0b76e$5bc99ed0$135cdc70$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Russ,

Your assessment is now available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1H1ftlw. 

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ
Housley
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 1:18 AM
To: ICG
Subject: [Internal-cg] My Assessment of the Names Community Proposal

Here is my assessment (using the individual process and proposal assessment
sheet).  Here is my bottom line:

The CWG-Stewardship proposal achieved consensus, but it is not complete.  It
depends on the mechanisms for the accountability of ICANN that are being
developed in the CCWG-Accountability.  A complete review is not possible
until this work is stable.

Russ

P.S. Jennifer, please put this document in dropbox.





From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jul  6 15:31:57 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:31:57 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary
In-Reply-To: <906d1446f9f54abe84d1eecf6c2546c1@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <11c51a8eaaf04fefb3964ab19d53ddb5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<74AE7551-EF49-4DC5-8F27-93C7A6E68657@cooperw.in>
	<906d1446f9f54abe84d1eecf6c2546c1@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <207c306480f74b5b98e5f2f1d602c0fd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Manal
I like all of your editorial changes and the minor structural change to avoid redundancy.
Only one very small nit: I don't understand why people want to capitalize Board in 'ICANN board.'

--MM

From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg]
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 6:33 PM
To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary

Please find attached and on Dropbox some minor edits and a few remarks .. I mainly moved, from the process part, everything that has to do with the assessment, as I found it to be redundant with the assessment part ..
Thoughts?

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:14 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary

Thank you for getting these edits done this week.

Alissa

On Jun 25, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

I have added as much to the Exec Summary as I can.
It is available in Dropbox inside a new folder I created called "Combined Proposal"

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/f6709765/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul  6 17:30:08 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:30:08 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Response to your May 6 letter
References: <CC4D31D0-F5F3-457D-93A2-6D4325ED5982@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <91F5AE00-FD35-4CB9-8B74-986BE2BAEA4B@cooperw.in>

Here is the final response letter that we sent to NTIA. I incorporated edits based on the feedback from the list over the weekend. Thanks all.

Alissa

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Subject: Response to your May 6 letter
> Date: July 6, 2015 at 10:28:44 AM PDT
> To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov>
> Cc: Fiona Alexander <FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov>, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net>
> 
> Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling:
> 
> Please find enclosed a response from the ICG chairs to your letter from May 6.
> 
> Regards,
> Alissa Cooper
> ICG Chair
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/c7e2c973/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NTIA-letter-response-final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 72639 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/c7e2c973/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/c7e2c973/attachment-0001.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul  6 18:26:01 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:26:01 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA
	trademark and	iana.org domain name
References: <00c501d0b516$dde71000$99b53000$@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <E47C9617-8EFF-487F-8DD6-38BF8042B963@cooperw.in>

My apologies for not forwarding this sooner.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and	iana.org domain name
> Date: July 2, 2015 at 3:31:36 PM PDT
> To: "'Alissa Cooper'" <alissa at cooperw.in>, <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Cc: "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
> Reply-To: <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> 
> 2 July 2015
>  
> Dear Alissa, Patrik & Mohammed
>  
> In response to your request on 19 June, we would like to provide you with additional clarification on the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal text with regard to the IANA trademark.
>  
> In order for PTI to operate the IANA naming function as envisioned by the CWG-Stewardship, PTI assumes it will be able to make use of both the iana.org domain and the IANA trademark in the performance of its work. Because ICANN is currently the registrant for the iana.org domain and the owner of the IANA trademark, and since PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, the CWG-Stewardship sees no reason PTI would be unable to make use of the domain name and IANA trademark as needed.  
>  
> Beyond the expectation described above, addressing the domain name registration and trademark issues is beyond the remit of the CWG-Stewardship alone, particularly in so  far as these may relate to how the use of the iana.org or IANA trademark impact the work of the other two operating communities. The text within the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal that refers to the trademark is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship, save for as presented as Annex S in the Final Proposal.
>  
> In effect, the Final Proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademark. Therefore it is our firm view that it is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. To reaffirm this, and to discuss a potential consolidated position, we have extended an offer to the leadership of the other two operational communities for a call on Tuesday, 7 July.
> We then intend to provide an update for discussion to the CWG-Stewardship at our next meeting on Thursday, 9 July. We are happy to provide you with a subsequent update on the outcomes of both discussions. 
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson
> Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship
>  
>  
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 19 June 2015 16:44
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
>  
> Dear CWG,
> 
> The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as subject to further negotiations.
> 
> During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. The CWG�s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term.
> 
> Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA trademark and domain name [2] should be transferred to an entity independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. [3]
> 
> Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extend to the domain name as well.
> 
> The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC.
> 
> Thank you,
> Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG
> 
> 
> [1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132
> 
> [2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
> 
> The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition."
> 
> [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html
> 
> [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/861ce7bd/attachment.html>

From apb at cequrux.com  Mon Jul  6 18:37:32 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 22:37:32 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of the names proposal
Message-ID: <20150706183732.GA446@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

I attach my assessment of the names proposal.  I have already 
uploaded this file to the ICG dropbox, under the path 
.../CoordinationGroup/Evaluation/Assessments/Names/names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc

--apb (Alan Barrett)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/78545189/attachment.doc>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul  6 20:35:55 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:35:55 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadline for comments on the ICG
	Communications Strategy documents is today 1 July, 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <00b701d0b41e$68e43830$3aaca890$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00b701d0b41e$68e43830$3aaca890$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <6FB2F4A6-5E12-4BD7-8704-525354B70556@cooperw.in>

Having received no further comments we can consider this document adopted. In the attached I removed the two footnotes that had placeholders for further detailed follow-up — the comms WG will circulate an update on those specifics separately.

Secretariat: please post a PDF version of this document to our site.

Thanks,
Alissa


On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
>  
> A reminder to all regarding Action Item 2 from the 25 June ICG wrap up session: ICG Members send comments to the internal-cg mailing list regarding ICG communications strategy document v4 (http://bit.ly/1BEgQuc) by 1 July 2015 23:59 UTC.
>  
> Please send all comments on the to 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/742f7c03/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-Comm-strategy-v5.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/742f7c03/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/742f7c03/attachment-0001.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul  6 20:38:24 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:38:24 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
Message-ID: <60B1AC31-EA8A-46C5-8ECF-3270517F4A2F@cooperw.in>

Please comment.

—

1. Names proposal assessment

   - Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, and Martin Boyle: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc
   
   - Assessment from Russ Housley: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc 	
   
   - Assessment from Alan Barrett: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc
   
   - Other assessments forthcoming

2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org 

3. Communications WG update

4. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/6815d444/attachment.html>

From narelle.clark at accan.org.au  Mon Jul  6 23:53:42 2015
From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:53:42 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] This is my about iana.org
In-Reply-To: <A52DACB6-05CD-4147-BE02-B1FA8EFE71A8@gmail.com>
References: <A52DACB6-05CD-4147-BE02-B1FA8EFE71A8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFC81E@ACCAN01.accan.local>

Thank you Kuo-Wei

I am slightly confused as to the context of this email. Is this a statement from the ICANN Board as a whole? From whence did it come?

I'm sure it has been a welcome statement, if indeed it is now public.


Narelle


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Wu Kuo-Wei
Sent: Friday, 3 July 2015 1:56 AM
To: ICG
Subject: [Internal-cg] This is my about iana.org

Dear All,

This is my comment about iana.org<http://iana.org> :


"ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG<http://iana.org/> and the IANA trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's performance of the IANA functions. The board recognizes that the community is considering different models for the maintenance of the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain name and the related trademarks.


The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the  intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate.


It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the operational communities."

Thanks.

Kuo Wu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/e02c6c29/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul  7 00:21:00 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 08:21:00 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadline for comments on the ICG
	Communications Strategy documents is today 1 July, 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <6FB2F4A6-5E12-4BD7-8704-525354B70556@cooperw.in>
References: <00b701d0b41e$68e43830$3aaca890$@icgsec.asia>
	<6FB2F4A6-5E12-4BD7-8704-525354B70556@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <01d601d0b84a$cfb216b0$6f164410$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

I have added the full list of Secretariat team members to footnote i (see
attached v6) - this will be published on the ICG web site shortly.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 4:36 AM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadline for comments on the ICG
Communications Strategy documents is today 1 July, 23:59 UTC

 

Having received no further comments we can consider this document adopted.
In the attached I removed the two footnotes that had placeholders for
further detailed follow-up - the comms WG will circulate an update on those
specifics separately.

 

Secretariat: please post a PDF version of this document to our site.

 

Thanks,

Alissa

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/4e4ac470/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-Comm-strategy-v6.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 137852 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/4e4ac470/attachment.pdf>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Jul  7 01:10:03 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 03:10:03 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
Message-ID: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>

All,

We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.

Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.

Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?

We need to decide shortly.

   Patrik Fältström
   Co-Chair
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/369b3938/attachment.sig>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Tue Jul  7 01:15:12 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:15:12 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <559B2820.3080109@oracle.com>

For me, my schedule only permits before.

On 7/6/2015 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> All,
>
> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
>
> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
>
> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>
> We need to decide shortly.
>
>     Patrik Fältström
>     Co-Chair
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150706/33648a5c/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Jul  7 01:26:31 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 03:26:31 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
Message-ID: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>

All,

Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.

Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.

     Patrik Fältström
     ICG Co-Chair

==========================

Lise, Jonathan,

You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:

<http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>

Specifically there are two claims:

1:

> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
> comment [...]

2:

> 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.

According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.

ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].

  [signed by Alissa]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Community Comments Handling-1May15-final.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18219 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/a01e90f4/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/a01e90f4/attachment.sig>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Tue Jul  7 02:58:19 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 22:58:19 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>

I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.

Russ


On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> All,
> 
> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
> 
> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
> 
> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
> 
> We need to decide shortly.
> 
>   Patrik Fältström
>   Co-Chair
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul  7 04:19:34 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:19:34 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Response to your May 6 letter
In-Reply-To: <91F5AE00-FD35-4CB9-8B74-986BE2BAEA4B@cooperw.in>
References: <CC4D31D0-F5F3-457D-93A2-6D4325ED5982@cooperw.in>
	<91F5AE00-FD35-4CB9-8B74-986BE2BAEA4B@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <000101d0b86c$244d9f70$6ce8de50$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

ICG’s response to NTIA has been published on the website and the ICG social
media accounts.

 

Web site:
http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/2015-07-06-Letter-from-ICG-to
-to-NTIA.pdf

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship 

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Alissa Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 1:30 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Response to your May 6 letter

 

Here is the final response letter that we sent to NTIA. I incorporated edits
based on the feedback from the list over the weekend. Thanks all.

 

Alissa

 

Begin forwarded message:





From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in> >

Subject: Response to your May 6 letter

Date: July 6, 2015 at 10:28:44 AM PDT

To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov
<mailto:LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov> >

Cc: Fiona Alexander <FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov
<mailto:FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov> >, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se
<mailto:paf at frobbit.se> >, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net
<mailto:mbashir at mbash.net> >

 

Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling:

Please find enclosed a response from the ICG chairs to your letter from May
6.

Regards,
Alissa Cooper
ICG Chair



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/0b2acc20/attachment.html>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Tue Jul  7 05:18:10 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:18:10 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Individual Assessment of Names Community Proposal
Message-ID: <1FCF1324-CBEA-4664-8009-343E2F3465F4@tislabs.com>

Folks,

Attached is my individual assessment of the Names Community Proposal.  Abbreviated summary is that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it has significant dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability providing output necessary to ensure the CWG proposal is implemented.  Additionally, I think that there is a weakness and perhaps a deficiency for Transition Implications relative the Root Zone Management activities after NTIA exits the process.


Russ M.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: individual-proposal-assessment-sheet-v1-CWG-RM1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/c79e3135/attachment.doc>

From apb at cequrux.com  Tue Jul  7 05:32:23 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:32:23 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of the names proposal
In-Reply-To: <20150706183732.GA446@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
References: <20150706183732.GA446@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Message-ID: <20150707053223.GB3952@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015, Alan Barrett wrote:
>I attach my assessment of the names proposal.  I have already uploaded 
>this file to the ICG dropbox, under the path .../CoordinationGroup/Evaluation/Assessments/Names/names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc

I have corrected a few typos, and replaced the file in the dropbox
folder.  I have also added a PDF version to the dropbox folder..

--apb (Alan Barrett)


From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Jul  7 05:44:40 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:44:40 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>

Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only to you Russ:

What do you think should be on the agenda?

   Patrik

On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:

> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>
> Russ
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
>>
>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
>>
>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>
>> We need to decide shortly.
>>
>> Patrik Fältström
>> Co-Chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/61758fe2/attachment.sig>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Tue Jul  7 13:38:06 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:38:06 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
In-Reply-To: <60B1AC31-EA8A-46C5-8ECF-3270517F4A2F@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <23246886.709.1436276283683.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local>

Hello Alissa & All,
due to unexpected tasks, I'm not able to join the call today. Will read what comes out of it, with interest.
Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Lundi 6 Juillet 2015 22:38:24
Objet: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8


Please comment. 


— 



1. Names proposal assessment 


- Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, and Martin Boyle: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc 

- Assessment from Russ Housley: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc 

- Assessment from Alan Barrett: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc 

- Other assessments forthcoming 


2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org 


3. Communications WG update 


4. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10 
_______________________________________________
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  Tue Jul  7 13:47:32 2015
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:47:32 -0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
In-Reply-To: <23246886.709.1436276283683.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local>
References: <23246886.709.1436276283683.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local>
Message-ID: <559BD874.4060909@cgi.br>


Is Tomorrow July 8.

==========================================
On 7/7/15 10:38 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
> Hello Alissa & All,
> due to unexpected tasks, I'm not able to join the call today. Will read what comes out of it, with interest.
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Lundi 6 Juillet 2015 22:38:24
> Objet: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
>
>
> Please comment.
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> 1. Names proposal assessment
>
>
> - Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, and Martin Boyle: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc
>
> - Assessment from Russ Housley: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc
>
> - Assessment from Alan Barrett: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc
>
> - Other assessments forthcoming
>
>
> 2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org
>
>
> 3. Communications WG update
>
>
> 4. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/856f9e71/attachment.html>

From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Tue Jul  7 14:20:41 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:20:41 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
In-Reply-To: <60B1AC31-EA8A-46C5-8ECF-3270517F4A2F@cooperw.in>
References: <60B1AC31-EA8A-46C5-8ECF-3270517F4A2F@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <371E831A-7CA9-41AC-BF0D-250056780486@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Alissa,

I think this looks good.  Given the tight timetables and pending workload, could we add an item to review upcoming ICG "commitments" - would serve as both a reminder and an update.

Best,
Lynn


On Jul 6, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Please comment.
> 
> —
> 
> 1. Names proposal assessment
> 
>    - Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, and Martin Boyle: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc
>    
>    - Assessment from Russ Housley: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc 	
>    
>    - Assessment from Alan Barrett: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc
>    
>    - Other assessments forthcoming
> 
> 2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org 
> 
> 3. Communications WG update
> 
> 4. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Tue Jul  7 14:24:42 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:24:42 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <C7785025-F036-422B-8EF6-645E2B4FFE3F@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Patrik,

I would support sending such a letter to the CWG Stewardship.  Thank you for taking the initiative.

Best,
Lynn

PS. there are a few typos in the draft text below and I assume these will be cleaned up.

On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> All,
> 
> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
> 
> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
> 
>     Patrik Fältström
>     ICG Co-Chair
> 
> ==========================
> 
> Lise, Jonathan,
> 
> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:
> 
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>
> 
> Specifically there are two claims:
> 
> 1:
> 
>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
>> comment [...]
> 
> 2:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.
> 
> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
> 
>  [signed by Alissa]
> <Community Comments Handling-1May15-final.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul  7 15:42:01 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:42:01 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
In-Reply-To: <559BD874.4060909@cgi.br>
Message-ID: <30098914.722.1436278275032.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local>

Yes Hartmut, I meant tomorrow 8.
Best,
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser at cgi.br>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mardi 7 Juillet 2015 15:47:32
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8


Is Tomorrow July 8. 

========================================== 

On 7/7/15 10:38 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: 


Hello Alissa & All,
due to unexpected tasks, I'm not able to join the call today. Will read what comes out of it, with interest.
Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 6 Juillet 2015 22:38:24
Objet: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8


Please comment. 


— 



1. Names proposal assessment 


- Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, and Martin Boyle: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc - Assessment from Russ Housley: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc - Assessment from Alan Barrett: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc - Other assessments forthcoming 


2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org 


3. Communications WG update 


4. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10 
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul  7 18:03:45 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 11:03:45 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>

My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:

- a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week ahead.
- a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
- a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.

Alissa

On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only to you Russ:
> 
> What do you think should be on the agenda?
> 
>   Patrik
> 
> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
> 
>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
>>> 
>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
>>> 
>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>> 
>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>> 
>>> Patrik Fältström
>>> Co-Chair
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 jon at donuts.email  Tue Jul  7 18:15:05 2015
From: jon at donuts.email (Jon Nevett)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:15:05 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <A6F9D141-8DF5-4B69-997F-25F668CD8FD1@donuts.email>

Alissa +1


> On Jul 7, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
> 
> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week ahead.
> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only to you Russ:
>> 
>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>> 
>>  Patrik
>> 
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>> 
>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
>>>> 
>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>> 
>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>> 
>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>> Co-Chair
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Tue Jul  7 18:32:00 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:32:00 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <C7785025-F036-422B-8EF6-645E2B4FFE3F@Internet-Matters.com>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
	<C7785025-F036-422B-8EF6-645E2B4FFE3F@Internet-Matters.com>
Message-ID: <ca615d456e5042559c46daf740e1027e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Patrik ..
I also support sending the below letter ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 4:25 PM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Hi Patrik,

I would support sending such a letter to the CWG Stewardship.  Thank you for taking the initiative.

Best,
Lynn

PS. there are a few typos in the draft text below and I assume these will be cleaned up.

On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> All,
> 
> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
> 
> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
> 
>     Patrik Fältström
>     ICG Co-Chair
> 
> ==========================
> 
> Lise, Jonathan,
> 
> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:
> 
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.
> html>
> 
> Specifically there are two claims:
> 
> 1:
> 
>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for 
>> public comment [...]
> 
> 2:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.
> 
> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
> 
>  [signed by Alissa]
> <Community Comments 
> Handling-1May15-final.docx>___________________________________________
> ____
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Jul  7 18:32:34 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:32:34 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
In-Reply-To: <371E831A-7CA9-41AC-BF0D-250056780486@Internet-Matters.com>
References: <60B1AC31-EA8A-46C5-8ECF-3270517F4A2F@cooperw.in>
	<371E831A-7CA9-41AC-BF0D-250056780486@Internet-Matters.com>
Message-ID: <000313f096db44969be24319dba2278b@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa ..
Looks good to me .. 
Support Lynn's suggestions ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 4:21 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8

Hi Alissa,

I think this looks good.  Given the tight timetables and pending workload, could we add an item to review upcoming ICG "commitments" - would serve as both a reminder and an update.

Best,
Lynn


On Jul 6, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Please comment.
> 
> -
> 
> 1. Names proposal assessment
> 
>    - Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, and 
> Martin Boyle: 
> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/
> Names?preview=names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc
>    
>    - Assessment from Russ Housley: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc 	
>    
>    - Assessment from Alan Barrett: 
> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/
> Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc
>    
>    - Other assessments forthcoming
> 
> 2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org
> 
> 3. Communications WG update
> 
> 4. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Tue Jul  7 18:40:22 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:40:22 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary
In-Reply-To: <207c306480f74b5b98e5f2f1d602c0fd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <11c51a8eaaf04fefb3964ab19d53ddb5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<74AE7551-EF49-4DC5-8F27-93C7A6E68657@cooperw.in>
	<906d1446f9f54abe84d1eecf6c2546c1@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<207c306480f74b5b98e5f2f1d602c0fd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <b18337ddac4f48409b023f994b9e1534@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Milton ..
I'm flexible with respect to using 'Board' vs 'board', noting that the ICANN website seems to be using 'Board' ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 5:32 PM
To: Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary

Manal
I like all of your editorial changes and the minor structural change to avoid redundancy.
Only one very small nit: I don't understand why people want to capitalize Board in 'ICANN board.'

--MM

From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg]
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 6:33 PM
To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary

Please find attached and on Dropbox some minor edits and a few remarks .. I mainly moved, from the process part, everything that has to do with the assessment, as I found it to be redundant with the assessment part ..
Thoughts?

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:14 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary

Thank you for getting these edits done this week.

Alissa

On Jun 25, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

I have added as much to the Exec Summary as I can.
It is available in Dropbox inside a new folder I created called "Combined Proposal"

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/4b38ee68/attachment.html>

From keith at internetnz.net.nz  Tue Jul  7 19:11:08 2015
From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 07:11:08 +1200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <559C244C.5050802@internetnz.net.nz>

Fully support this plan.

Cheers

Keith

On 8/07/2015 6:03 a.m., Alissa Cooper wrote:
> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>
> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week ahead.
> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>
>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only to you Russ:
>>
>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>
>>    Patrik
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
>>>>
>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>
>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>
>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>> Co-Chair
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul  7 19:16:28 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:16:28 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>

Patrik,

I think there is actually only one question for the CWG here, and it’s slightly different from the ones you pose below. More comments inline.

On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> All,
> 
> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
> 
> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
> 
>     Patrik Fältström
>     ICG Co-Chair
> 
> ==========================
> 
> Lise, Jonathan,
> 
> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:
> 
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>
> 
> Specifically there are two claims:
> 
> 1:
> 
>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
>> comment […]

I will quote the whole section from Richard’s comment:

"But 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.

In particular, as detailed below, many of my comments were dismissed.”

On the point about submitting the final proposal for public comment, I believe his formulation could well lead to an infinite loop. That is, if a document is put out for public comment, and comments are incorporated and edits are made, and then it is put out again for public comment, and comments are again incorporated and edits made … the process never ends. Thus I don’t think anyone can rightly expect that there would continue to be public comment periods forever, nor that public comment periods would continue until no comments were received or final edits made. I think what we got from the CWG was a proposal that incorporated edits based on comments received where those edits, and the proposal as a whole, achieved consensus in the CWG. An explanation of this is given on p. 49-51 of the proposal, and a thorough explanation of the disposition of every comment received in the last round is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-11jun15-en.pdf>. I don’t think it would be fair for us to ask the CWG why they didn’t run a process that could produce an infinite loop. Which brings me to the next point --

> 
> 2:
> 
>> 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.

As explained on page 45 of the CWG proposal and in the CWG charter, the CWG is open to any interested individual. Richard claims that "CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community,” but I don’t think that logic follows given that anyone can participate in the group. I realize that Richard chose not to participate <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html>, but that doesn’t mean the process was not open to the global community. I don’t think we need more information from the CWG to clarify this.

The one area where we might need clarification is around consensus and minority views. 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.” Given 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), I assume the CWG considers their public comment analysis document referenced above to be the reference point for us to understand objections and minority views concerning the proposal. But we could ask about that specifically if folks think that is unclear.

Alissa


> 
> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.
> 
> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
> 
>  [signed by Alissa]
> <Community Comments Handling-1May15-final.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/3c8b5daf/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul  7 19:17:59 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:17:59 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
In-Reply-To: <000313f096db44969be24319dba2278b@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <60B1AC31-EA8A-46C5-8ECF-3270517F4A2F@cooperw.in>
	<371E831A-7CA9-41AC-BF0D-250056780486@Internet-Matters.com>
	<000313f096db44969be24319dba2278b@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <F272B479-BC15-4CF8-8363-FBE9F8A7FCCF@cooperw.in>

Updated agenda is below.

===

1. Names proposal assessment

   - Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, Martin Boyle: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5eafnap38496qj/names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc?dl=0
   
   - Assessment from Russ Housley: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc 	
   
   - Assessment from Alan Barrett: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc
   
   - Assessment from Russ Mundy:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=individual-proposal-assessment-sheet-v1-CWG-RM1.doc
   
   - Other assessments forthcoming

2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org 

3. Comments from Richard Hill

4. Communications WG update

5. Review of upcoming ICG commitments and schedule

6. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10



On Jul 7, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Alissa ..
> Looks good to me .. 
> Support Lynn's suggestions ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 4:21 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
> I think this looks good.  Given the tight timetables and pending workload, could we add an item to review upcoming ICG "commitments" - would serve as both a reminder and an update.
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> Please comment.
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> 1. Names proposal assessment
>> 
>>   - Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, and 
>> Martin Boyle: 
>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/
>> Names?preview=names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc
>> 
>>   - Assessment from Russ Housley: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc 	
>> 
>>   - Assessment from Alan Barrett: 
>> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/
>> Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc
>> 
>>   - Other assessments forthcoming
>> 
>> 2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org
>> 
>> 3. Communications WG update
>> 
>> 4. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Tue Jul  7 19:26:37 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 21:26:37 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
	<02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se>

Alissa,

You as always express things better than I do :-)

The key issue for ICG is the following, I think:

> Thus, in my view, that Final Proposal does not represent the consensus of
> the global multi-stakeholder community.
>
> Having carefully reviewed the Final Proposal, I formally object to it for
> the reasons detailed in the attached PDF file.
>
> Consequently, I request that the ICG return to proposal to the
> CWG-Stewardship.

I.e. there is a specific request here from Richard. I was definitely not after an infinite loop, but rather a confirmation from CWG that regarding these two issues they have indeed followed the processes they have explained in the document. Specifically as Richard writes "But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
comment".

It is though possibly much better to, as you suggest, just point at the comment and ask for comments from the CWG.

   Patrik

On 7 Jul 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Patrik,
>
> I think there is actually only one question for the CWG here, and it’s slightly different from the ones you pose below. More comments inline.
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
>>
>> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
>>
>>  Patrik Fältström
>>  ICG Co-Chair
>>
>> ==========================
>>
>> Lise, Jonathan,
>>
>> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:
>>
>> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>
>>
>> Specifically there are two claims:
>>
>> 1:
>>
>>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
>>> comment […]
>
> I will quote the whole section from Richard’s comment:
>
> "But 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.
>
> In particular, as detailed below, many of my comments were dismissed.”
>
> On the point about submitting the final proposal for public comment, I believe his formulation could well lead to an infinite loop. That is, if a document is put out for public comment, and comments are incorporated and edits are made, and then it is put out again for public comment, and comments are again incorporated and edits made … the process never ends. Thus I don’t think anyone can rightly expect that there would continue to be public comment periods forever, nor that public comment periods would continue until no comments were received or final edits made. I think what we got from the CWG was a proposal that incorporated edits based on comments received where those edits, and the proposal as a whole, achieved consensus in the CWG. An explanation of this is given on p. 49-51 of the proposal, and a thorough explanation of the disposition of every comment received in the last round is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-11jun15-en.pdf>. I don’t think it would be fair for us to ask the CWG why they didn’t run a process that could produce an infinite loop. Which brings me to the next point --
>
>>
>> 2:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> As explained on page 45 of the CWG proposal and in the CWG charter, the CWG is open to any interested individual. Richard claims that "CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community,” but I don’t think that logic follows given that anyone can participate in the group. I realize that Richard chose not to participate <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html>, but that doesn’t mean the process was not open to the global community. I don’t think we need more information from the CWG to clarify this.
>
> The one area where we might need clarification is around consensus and minority views. 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.” Given 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), I assume the CWG considers their public comment analysis document referenced above to be the reference point for us to understand objections and minority views concerning the proposal. But we could ask about that specifically if folks think that is unclear.
>
> Alissa
>
>
>>
>> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.
>>
>> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
>>
>> [signed by Alissa]
>> <Community Comments Handling-1May15-final.docx>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/180553a1/attachment.sig>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Tue Jul  7 20:29:51 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:29:51 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>	<02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>
	<D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <559C36BF.5030203@oracle.com>

Would agree with point and ask...

On 7/7/2015 3:26 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Alissa,
>
> You as always express things better than I do :-)
>
> The key issue for ICG is the following, I think:
>
>> Thus, in my view, that Final Proposal does not represent the consensus of
>> the global multi-stakeholder community.
>>
>> Having carefully reviewed the Final Proposal, I formally object to it for
>> the reasons detailed in the attached PDF file.
>>
>> Consequently, I request that the ICG return to proposal to the
>> CWG-Stewardship.
> I.e. there is a specific request here from Richard. I was definitely not after an infinite loop, but rather a confirmation from CWG that regarding these two issues they have indeed followed the processes they have explained in the document. Specifically as Richard writes "But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
> comment".
>
> It is though possibly much better to, as you suggest, just point at the comment and ask for comments from the CWG.
>
>     Patrik
>
> On 7 Jul 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>> Patrik,
>>
>> I think there is actually only one question for the CWG here, and it’s slightly different from the ones you pose below. More comments inline.
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
>>>
>>> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
>>>
>>>   Patrik Fältström
>>>   ICG Co-Chair
>>>
>>> ==========================
>>>
>>> Lise, Jonathan,
>>>
>>> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:
>>>
>>> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>
>>>
>>> Specifically there are two claims:
>>>
>>> 1:
>>>
>>>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
>>>> comment […]
>> I will quote the whole section from Richard’s comment:
>>
>> "But 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.
>>
>> In particular, as detailed below, many of my comments were dismissed.”
>>
>> On the point about submitting the final proposal for public comment, I believe his formulation could well lead to an infinite loop. That is, if a document is put out for public comment, and comments are incorporated and edits are made, and then it is put out again for public comment, and comments are again incorporated and edits made … the process never ends. Thus I don’t think anyone can rightly expect that there would continue to be public comment periods forever, nor that public comment periods would continue until no comments were received or final edits made. I think what we got from the CWG was a proposal that incorporated edits based on comments received where those edits, and the proposal as a whole, achieved consensus in the CWG. An explanation of this is given on p. 49-51 of the proposal, and a thorough explanation of the disposition of every comment received in the last round is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-11jun15-en.pdf>. I don’t think it would be fair for us to ask the CWG why they didn’t run a process that could produce an infinite loop. Which brings me to the next point --
>>
>>> 2:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> As explained on page 45 of the CWG proposal and in the CWG charter, the CWG is open to any interested individual. Richard claims that "CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community,” but I don’t think that logic follows given that anyone can participate in the group. I realize that Richard chose not to participate <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html>, but that doesn’t mean the process was not open to the global community. I don’t think we need more information from the CWG to clarify this.
>>
>> The one area where we might need clarification is around consensus and minority views. 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.” Given 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), I assume the CWG considers their public comment analysis document referenced above to be the reference point for us to understand objections and minority views concerning the proposal. But we could ask about that specifically if folks think that is unclear.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>
>>> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.
>>>
>>> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
>>>
>>> [signed by Alissa]
>>> <Community Comments Handling-1May15-final.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150707/dbd55414/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul  7 22:25:06 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 06:25:06 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face Meeting #5: Days 1
	and 2
Message-ID: <00cb01d0b903$c8e118e0$5aa34aa0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the minutes for Days 1 and 2 of the ICG face-to-face meeting 5
attached and linked below: 

 

Day 1: http://bit.ly/1JN2WZT

Day 2: http://bit.ly/1eDNWzQ 

 

The minutes for the wrap-up session will be forth-coming.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/bc653948/attachment.html>
-------------- 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/bc653948/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day2-19-june-2015-v1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 40141 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/bc653948/attachment-0001.docx>

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jul  7 22:32:35 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 22:32:35 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <559C244C.5050802@internetnz.net.nz>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
	<559C244C.5050802@internetnz.net.nz>
Message-ID: <b3783b06ebff42f3b53638ae2d9cc405@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Agree with this plan. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Davidson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 3:11 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
> 
> Fully support this plan.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Keith
> 
> On 8/07/2015 6:03 a.m., Alissa Cooper wrote:
> > My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
> >
> > - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case
> we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week
> ahead.
> > - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did
> in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG's last session) to possibly conclude our
> work and decide that we're ready to submit the proposal.
> > - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we
> don't actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the
> proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time to
> discuss communications needs and the ICG's role while awaiting USG review
> and implementation finalization.
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> > On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> >
> >> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only to
> you Russ:
> >>
> >> What do you think should be on the agenda?
> >>
> >>    Patrik
> >>
> >> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to
> know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it
> meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
> >>>
> >>> Russ
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the
> ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but
> have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also
> do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the
> ICANN meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we
> should meet before or after.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
> >>>>
> >>>> We need to decide shortly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrik Fältström
> >>>> Co-Chair
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> > .
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul  7 22:34:40 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 06:34:40 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #19 - Wednesday, 8 July 2015,
	12:00-14:30 UTC
Message-ID: <00d601d0b905$1f2ea4f0$5d8beed0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG Members,

 

This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #19 is scheduled for:

 

**Wednesday, 8 July 2015**

at 12:00-14:30 UTC

See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1Ae3rJ0

Announcement:
<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/>
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/

 

You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call
details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email
(off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.
Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar
subscription function here:  <https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/>
https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know
at  <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> admin at icgsec.asia.

 

Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room -
<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To
avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio
from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you
plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to
mute the virtual meeting room.

 

Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue.
To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect
room:



If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please
let the Secretariat team know.

 

Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR,
RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please
note that Livestreaming translations in AR and ZH will be available for the
first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting
Room for the remaining 30 minutes.

 

Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the
Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the
global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English
stream.

 

Agenda proposed by Alissa

1. Names proposal assessment

- Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, Martin Boyle:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5eafnap38496qj/names-proposal-preassessment-draft
-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc?dl=0

- Assessment from Russ Housley:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?
preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc 

 - Assessment from Alan Barrett:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?
preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc

- Assessment from Russ Mundy:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?
preview=individual-proposal-assessment-sheet-v1-CWG-RM1.doc

- Other assessments forthcoming

2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org 

3. Comments from Richard Hill

4. Communications WG update

5. Review of upcoming ICG commitments and schedule

6. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 10

 

As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any
questions, concerns or need a dial-out.

 

Thank you!

 

Best regards

ICG Secretariat Team

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/8f316c04/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/8f316c04/attachment.png>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul  7 22:35:53 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:35:53 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
Message-ID: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>

Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.

Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?

Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.

Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.

Alissa




From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul  7 22:45:34 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:45:34 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Communications plan for public comment launch
Message-ID: <C4E11039-7194-440E-AB9D-24B28FB92BB0@cooperw.in>

The Comms WG has been working up a plan for communications surrounding the public comment launch. It is based off of our teleconference schedule for this month:

July 15 conference call: Assessment of combined proposal
July 29 conference call: Finalization of materials for public comment launch 

Assuming we will need a day or two after the last call to get everything ready for the public comment launch, we can assume the launch with occur around July 31. I’ve included dates below based around that assumption.

== Communications plan for public comment launch ==

Webinars
- ICG will plan three webinars covering different time zones during the week of August 3.
- ICG Comms WG is working with Xplane to develop slide deck for use in the webinars (and elsewhere)
	- Leveraging existing visuals created for proposal components
	- Working with OC reps to ensure accuracy
	- Goal is to have initial draft decks available for full ICG review around July 20.
- Once deck is complete ICG Comms WG may identify key slides to get translated by ICANN languages team. 

Spokespeople
- ICG will designate 1-2 spokespeople in each region who are willing to respond to media inquiries regarding the proposal and call for public comment.
- Goal should be to have people designated by July 31.

Talking points
- ICG will update its FAQ and include potential questions and answers that may arise as a result of the launch of the public comment period.
- Goal should be to have initial draft updates available around July 24 and finalized by July 31.
- Manal has the token for this (right?)

Press release
- ICG and ICANN will work together on a press release to be issued coincident with the launch of the public comment period.

Short videos
- Time permitting, ICG will identify individuals willing to record short videos in multiple languages about the proposal and public comment period.
- Goal should be to get videos recorded and posted during the week of August 3.


From pwilson at apnic.net  Wed Jul  8 00:39:44 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:39:44 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #19 - July 8
In-Reply-To: <60B1AC31-EA8A-46C5-8ECF-3270517F4A2F@cooperw.in>
References: <60B1AC31-EA8A-46C5-8ECF-3270517F4A2F@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <411BAC76-A3DA-4A4F-A922-F1C9C20C3516@apnic.net>

My apologies - I am on leave this week and have very poor Internet 
connectivity available.

I won’t make it to today’s meeting.

Paul.



On 7 Jul 2015, at 6:38, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Please comment.
>
> —
>
> 1. Names proposal assessment
>
> - Assessment from Wolf-Ulrich, Keith Davidson, Mary Uduma, and Martin 
> Boyle: 
> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-preassessment-draft-WUK-KD-MU-MB-v2.doc
>
> - Assessment from Russ Housley: 
> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-RH.doc 
> 	
>
> - Assessment from Alan Barrett: 
> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names?preview=names-proposal-assessment-apb.20150706.doc
>
> - Other assessments forthcoming
>
> 2. Response from CWG co-chairs concerning IANA trademark and iana.org
>
> 3. Communications WG update
>
> 4. Approval of minutes from call #18 - June 
> 10_______________________________________________
> 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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Jul  8 03:38:53 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:38:53 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <A6F9D141-8DF5-4B69-997F-25F668CD8FD1@donuts.email>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se><3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com><A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se><D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
	<A6F9D141-8DF5-4B69-997F-25F668CD8FD1@donuts.email>
Message-ID: <56D56610DF8642F3AE693CB80F6DA702@WUKPC>

Thanks Alissa.

Due to other ICANN commitments on Sunday I'd prefer the meeting at the 
beginning of the week taking place either Sunday morning or even Saturday 
(afternoon). But I'd try to coordinate with the majority.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Jon Nevett
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 2:15 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin

Alissa +1


> On Jul 7, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>
> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case 
> we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week 
> ahead.
> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did 
> in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude 
> our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we 
> don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the 
> proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time 
> to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting USG 
> review and implementation finalization.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>
>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only 
>> to you Russ:
>>
>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>
>>  Patrik
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to 
>>> know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that 
>>> it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN 
>>>> meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a 
>>>> "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the 
>>>> reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN 
>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should 
>>>> meet before or after.
>>>>
>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>
>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>
>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>> Co-Chair
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 



From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Jul  8 03:41:13 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:41:13 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <ca615d456e5042559c46daf740e1027e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se><C7785025-F036-422B-8EF6-645E2B4FFE3F@Internet-Matters.com>
	<ca615d456e5042559c46daf740e1027e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <456BFFBB4FC74EF2AE1B1DC7AA3B3C03@WUKPC>

I agree to the letter

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Manal Ismail
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 2:32 AM
To: Lynn St.Amour ; Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Thanks Patrik ..
I also support sending the below letter ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn 
St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 4:25 PM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Hi Patrik,

I would support sending such a letter to the CWG Stewardship.  Thank you for 
taking the initiative.

Best,
Lynn

PS. there are a few typos in the draft text below and I assume these will be 
cleaned up.

On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> All,
>
> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After 
> contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG 
> Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
>
> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
>
>     Patrik Fältström
>     ICG Co-Chair
>
> ==========================
>
> Lise, Jonathan,
>
> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr 
> Richard Hill:
>
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.
> html>
>
> Specifically there are two claims:
>
> 1:
>
>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for
>> public comment [...]
>
> 2:
>
>> 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.
>
> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see 
> attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be 
> investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that 
> conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC 
> do have any input.
>
> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course 
> anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would 
> like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
>
>  [signed by Alissa]
> <Community Comments
> Handling-1May15-final.docx>___________________________________________
> ____
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
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 Jul  8 04:45:15 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:45:15 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <D766A394-2CCA-49FA-A4B9-10B6413938E7@apnic.net>

On 8 Jul 2015, at 8:35, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote 
> down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>
> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) 
> point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as 
> part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, 
> etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these 
> for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or 
> supporting material)?
>
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot 
> be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. 
> My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with 
> public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of 
> the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.

I agree we should move forward.

Paul.


>
> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s 
> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. 
> I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval 
> of the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on 
> our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek 
> clarification.
>
> 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 pwilson at apnic.net  Wed Jul  8 04:55:34 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:55:34 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <18591954-7290-47A3-B065-8A4C54EA7090@apnic.net>

I agree.

Hope we can confirm the Sunday timing soon.

Also, I suggest to schedule for a full day on Friday.

Paul.



On 8 Jul 2015, at 4:03, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>
> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in 
> case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for 
> the week ahead.
> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we 
> did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly 
> conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the 
> proposal.
> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in 
> case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work 
> more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use 
> a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role 
> while awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> 
> wrote:
>
>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not 
>> only to you Russ:
>>
>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs 
>>> to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and 
>>> that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the 
>>>> ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, 
>>>> but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We 
>>>> could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual 
>>>> work after the ICANN meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we 
>>>> should meet before or after.
>>>>
>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>
>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>
>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>> Co-Chair
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 keith at internetnz.net.nz  Wed Jul  8 05:51:06 2015
From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 17:51:06 +1200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <D766A394-2CCA-49FA-A4B9-10B6413938E7@apnic.net>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<D766A394-2CCA-49FA-A4B9-10B6413938E7@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <559CBA4A.2020106@internetnz.net.nz>

I would like to think we can find a way to move forward as suggested by 
Alissa, but the issues I have is the level of change required to make 
the Names proposal acceptable, and whether the change required needs to 
be referred back to the CWG for them to achieve consensus on the changes 
firstly. Or alternatively does the ICG have the authority to make the 
changes without testing the consensus on the changes with the Names 
Community. Or alternately alternately, if ICG makes changes and there is 
no adverse reaction from our consultation process, that that provides a 
deemed consensus from the Names Community.

For what it is worth, I have 4 issues arising:

1. The Names Proposal is deficient in that it does not fully address the 
accountability requirements for a post-NTIA IANA, and the final 
recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability Working Group need to be 
incorporated into the final Names Proposal in order to address these 
deficiencies.

2. The wording in the Names Proposal concerning the Intellectual 
Property Rights over "IANA"  require redrafting. Since the current 
wording has unanimous agreement from the Names community, is it 
necessary to return the proposal to the CWG-IANA Working Group for their 
redrafting and re-development of consensus?

3. The Names Proposal contains a useful set of principles applicable to 
an intended "Service Level Expectation" for IANA and its customers. The 
final Service Level Expectations (SLE) are still being drafted. If there 
is agreement that the Names Proposal requires redrafting from CWG-IANA 
to accommodate my items 1 and 2 above, then also including the final SLE 
wording would seem to be appropriate, for the sake of a more complete 
and more accountable proposal.

4. There are several specific comments and references in the Names 
Proposal to delegations and redelegations of ccTLDs, including 
referencing ICP-1, to the GAC Principles and to the applicability of 
"local law" which I have some ongoing issues with. Some of my issues are 
addressed in the ccNSO's "Framework of Interpretation", which was 
adopted by the ICANN Board in Buenos Aires and is now being implemented. 
Again, if the items 1 and 2 from my list are significant enough to 
require redrafting, I would propose that these issues could also be 
modified to reflect the up-to-date status that ICANN now has relating to 
the FOI that would clarify and enhance the Names Proposal. As time goes 
by implementation of the FOI will add further clarity, so perhaps this 
last set of issues is more appropriately dealt with by considering 
"friendly" amendments to the Names proposal from feedback in the ICG 
consultation process...



I know others have other issues, but provide the above as a starter of a 
more definitive "issues list"


Cheers

Keith




Cheers

Keith

On 8/07/2015 4:45 p.m., Paul Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2015, at 8:35, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote
>> down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>>
>> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin)
>> point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as
>> part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget,
>> etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these
>> for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or
>> supporting material)?
>>
>> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot
>> be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG.
>> My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with
>> public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of
>> the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>
> I agree we should move forward.
>
> Paul.
>
>
>>
>> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
>> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that.
>> I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval
>> of the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on
>> our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>>
>> 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 mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jul  8 08:12:31 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:12:31 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <35f53dcc4b2c4c7d80c554653780a54f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
> 

My view is that we cannot consider the names proposal complete until Work Stream 1 of the CCWG is finished and accepted. I thought we had agreed on this in Buenos Aires. 

--MM


From apb at cequrux.com  Wed Jul  8 08:32:21 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 12:32:21 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <559CBA4A.2020106@internetnz.net.nz>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<D766A394-2CCA-49FA-A4B9-10B6413938E7@apnic.net>
	<559CBA4A.2020106@internetnz.net.nz>
Message-ID: <20150708083221.GG1947@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Keith Davidson wrote:
> For what it is worth, I have 4 issues arising:
>
> 2. The wording in the Names Proposal concerning the Intellectual 
> Property Rights over "IANA" require redrafting. Since the 
> current wording has unanimous agreement from the Names 
> community, is it necessary to return the proposal to the 
> CWG-IANA Working Group for their redrafting and re-development 
> of consensus?

The introduction to Annex S of the names proposal from CWG says 
that everything in square brackets is a placeholder.  The section 
on Trademarks on page 128 is all in square brackets, and reads as 
follows:

        [ICANN will grants PTI an exclusive, royalty-free,
        fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark
        and all related trademarks in connection with PTI’s
        activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract.]

The CWG chairs have clarified (see 
<http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000697.html>) 
that this sentence in square brackets "has not been fully 
worked through by the CWG and we have expressly left it to 
implementation."

--apb (Alan Barrett)


From kuoweiwu at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 08:45:59 2015
From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:45:59 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>

If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
 
> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
> 
> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
> 
> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?

It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status, IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan, and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than SLA, budget,..).

Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my comment.

Thanks.

Kuo Wu
 
> 
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
> 
> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Jul  8 09:21:28 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 17:21:28 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>

Kuo-Wei,

I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times 
in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in 
order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation. 
They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is 
crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the 
system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
Career plan of staff is one element between others.
I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff 
liaison could gide us.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Wu Kuo-Wei
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the 
liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.

> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>
> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a 
> few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>
> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point 
> out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of 
> implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would 
> be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. 
> Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?

It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate 
the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input 
from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term 
stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the 
career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status, 
IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan, 
and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn 
IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but 
ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than 
SLA, budget,..).

Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my 
comment.

Thanks.

Kuo Wu

>
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be 
> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My 
> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public 
> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? 
> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>
> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s 
> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I 
> note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of 
> the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our 
> work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>
> 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 Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul  8 09:42:28 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:28 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <456BFFBB4FC74EF2AE1B1DC7AA3B3C03@WUKPC>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se><C7785025-F036-422B-8EF6-645E2B4FFE3F@Internet-Matters.com>
	<ca615d456e5042559c46daf740e1027e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<456BFFBB4FC74EF2AE1B1DC7AA3B3C03@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE3C0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Yes, I'm fine with this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: 08 July 2015 04:41
To: Manal Ismail; Lynn St.Amour; Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

I agree to the letter

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Manal Ismail
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 2:32 AM
To: Lynn St.Amour ; Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Thanks Patrik ..
I also support sending the below letter ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 4:25 PM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Hi Patrik,

I would support sending such a letter to the CWG Stewardship.  Thank you for taking the initiative.

Best,
Lynn

PS. there are a few typos in the draft text below and I assume these will be cleaned up.

On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> All,
>
> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After 
> contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG 
> Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
>
> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
>
>     Patrik Fältström
>     ICG Co-Chair
>
> ==========================
>
> Lise, Jonathan,
>
> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG 
> from mr Richard Hill:
>
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.
> html>
>
> Specifically there are two claims:
>
> 1:
>
>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for 
>> public comment [...]
>
> 2:
>
>> 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.
>
> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this 
> (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be 
> investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that 
> conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the 
> OC do have any input.
>
> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of 
> course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, 
> and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
>
>  [signed by Alissa]
> <Community Comments
> Handling-1May15-final.docx>___________________________________________
> ____
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul  8 09:52:02 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:52:02 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <18591954-7290-47A3-B065-8A4C54EA7090@apnic.net>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
	<18591954-7290-47A3-B065-8A4C54EA7090@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE40A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

I also agree.  We do need to spend some time preparing for the week - what questions (if any) we think are still outstanding, for example, as well as the state of play on our own draft (including any additional comments that we have received).

But our main work will be at the end of the week when (for the names bit): CCWG has finalised its proposal and that has gone through the Chartering Organisations;  and CWG has accepted that the CCWG report meets its requirements and that this has been validated by the Chartering Organisations.

Whether Sunday (quite a busy day for many who are active in ICANN) is the best day for the prepare meeting, I have my doubts.

One thought I have:  should the ICG solicit a meeting with Larry Strickling to present our expected final proposal?

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: 08 July 2015 05:56
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin

I agree.

Hope we can confirm the Sunday timing soon.

Also, I suggest to schedule for a full day on Friday.

Paul.



On 8 Jul 2015, at 4:03, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>
> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in 
> case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for 
> the week ahead.
> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we 
> did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly 
> conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in 
> case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work 
> more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use 
> a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while 
> awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>
> wrote:
>
>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not 
>> only to you Russ:
>>
>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs 
>>> to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and 
>>> that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the 
>>>> ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, 
>>>> but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We 
>>>> could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual 
>>>> work after the ICANN meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we 
>>>> should meet before or after.
>>>>
>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>
>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>
>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>> Co-Chair
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Jul  8 09:43:50 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 17:43:50 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <35f53dcc4b2c4c7d80c554653780a54f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<35f53dcc4b2c4c7d80c554653780a54f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <35873763882E4F4580381C6E0ECC8465@WUKPC>

Yes, it's clear that the proposal is not complete since missing the 
accountability related input.
I also accept the concerns raised by others. Nevertheless this shouldn't 
prohibit us to continue with the assessment as far as possible.

I'll try to join the call but there are connectivity problems (from a river 
island in China). I hope Martin will be participating to "defend" our joint 
assessment.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:12 PM
To: Alissa Cooper ; ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments



> -----Original Message-----
>
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>

My view is that we cannot consider the names proposal complete until Work 
Stream 1 of the CCWG is finished and accepted. I thought we had agreed on 
this in Buenos Aires.

--MM

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 



From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul  8 10:13:11 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:13:11 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <559C36BF.5030203@oracle.com>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
	<02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>
	<D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se>
	<559C36BF.5030203@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE459@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Sorry, I replied to the wrong e-mail:  I agree with Alissa's suggestion.

In particular, the point that a process of attrition - amending the draft and sending out for consultation again and again - is an entirely unreasonable one:  it could be categorised as a "last man standing" approach and I do not think I have seen any organisation go to this level of iteration for this very reason.

On the point about openness:  the CWG was open to participants from outside the Chartering Organisations and (if I remember correctly) Mr Hill made a fuss about not being allowed to be a member of the CWG.  It was his choice not to join as a participant.

So a "we have received the comment from Mr H and we'd welcome your comments on this.

Martin



From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: 07 July 2015 21:30
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Would agree with point and ask...
On 7/7/2015 3:26 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

Alissa,



You as always express things better than I do :-)



The key issue for ICG is the following, I think:



Thus, in my view, that Final Proposal does not represent the consensus of

the global multi-stakeholder community.



Having carefully reviewed the Final Proposal, I formally object to it for

the reasons detailed in the attached PDF file.



Consequently, I request that the ICG return to proposal to the

CWG-Stewardship.



I.e. there is a specific request here from Richard. I was definitely not after an infinite loop, but rather a confirmation from CWG that regarding these two issues they have indeed followed the processes they have explained in the document. Specifically as Richard writes "But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public

comment".



It is though possibly much better to, as you suggest, just point at the comment and ask for comments from the CWG.



   Patrik



On 7 Jul 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote:



Patrik,



I think there is actually only one question for the CWG here, and it's slightly different from the ones you pose below. More comments inline.



On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se><mailto:paf at frobbit.se> wrote:



All,



Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.



Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.



 Patrik Fältström

 ICG Co-Chair



==========================



Lise, Jonathan,



You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:



<http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html><http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>



Specifically there are two claims:



1:



But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public

comment [...]



I will quote the whole section from Richard's comment:



"But 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.



In particular, as detailed below, many of my comments were dismissed."



On the point about submitting the final proposal for public comment, I believe his formulation could well lead to an infinite loop. That is, if a document is put out for public comment, and comments are incorporated and edits are made, and then it is put out again for public comment, and comments are again incorporated and edits made ... the process never ends. Thus I don't think anyone can rightly expect that there would continue to be public comment periods forever, nor that public comment periods would continue until no comments were received or final edits made. I think what we got from the CWG was a proposal that incorporated edits based on comments received where those edits, and the proposal as a whole, achieved consensus in the CWG. An explanation of this is given on p. 49-51 of the proposal, and a thorough explanation of the disposition of every comment received in the last round is available at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-11jun15-en.pdf><https://www.icann.org/en/system/fi!%20les/files/report-comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-11jun15-en.pdf>. I don't think it would be fair for us to ask the CWG why they didn't run a process that could produce an infinite loop. Which brings me to the next point --





2:



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.



As explained on page 45 of the CWG proposal and in the CWG charter, the CWG is open to any interested individual. Richard claims that "CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global multi-stakeholder community," but I don't think that logic follows given that anyone can participate in the group. I realize that Richard chose not to participate <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html><http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html>, but that doesn't mean the process was not open to the global community. I don't think we need more information from the CWG to clarify this.



The one area where we might need clarification is around consensus and minority views. 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." Given 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), I assume the CWG considers their public comment analysis document referenced above to be the reference point for us to understand objections and minority views concerning the proposal. But we could ask about that specifically if folks think that is unclear.



Alissa







According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.



ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].



[signed by Alissa]

<Community Comments Handling-1May15-final.docx>_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>

http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org




_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>

http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/eb95066f/attachment.html>

From apb at cequrux.com  Wed Jul  8 10:27:07 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:27:07 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE459@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
	<02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>
	<D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se>
	<559C36BF.5030203@oracle.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE459@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20150708102707.GL1947@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Martin Boyle wrote:
>So a "we have received the comment from Mr H and we'd welcome your comments on this.

I also support a letter to CWG along the lines suggested by Alissa.

--apb (Alan Barrett)


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul  8 10:56:12 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:56:12 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE40A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
	<18591954-7290-47A3-B065-8A4C54EA7090@apnic.net>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE40A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <aaf68b10a29f4fdb87c3eabbc2b1c052@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Allow me to share a few thoughts until we talk:
- I believe splitting our meetings before and after the ICANN week turned to be very useful in BA
- Sunday seems to be an extremely busy day (also for me) .. Would Saturday morning work? for everyone?
- Prior to the ICANN meeting, I believe we may need more than a couple of hours (ICG analysis of Public comments received - preparatory work for the week - communications plan for this phase which is also identified as peak time, agree on place holders in the final proposal where we need to reflect CCWG approval, if and when approved, ...) .. or this will be mostly finished intersessionally?
- After the ICANN meeting, when CCWG proposal is hopefully approved by its chartering organizations, we can reflect this where we have our place holders; yet, as agreed in BA, we still need to communicate with CWG to make sure the proposal meets the names community requirements .. what is the timeframe for this? will this be accomplished at Dublin? Via a Letter? Email? Meeting? Call?.. Finally are we going to reference the whole CCWG proposal? attach all CCWG recommendations? reference specific names-related CCWG recommendations? 

Looking forward to further discuss on the call ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 11:52 AM
To: Paul Wilson; Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin

I also agree.  We do need to spend some time preparing for the week - what questions (if any) we think are still outstanding, for example, as well as the state of play on our own draft (including any additional comments that we have received).

But our main work will be at the end of the week when (for the names bit): CCWG has finalised its proposal and that has gone through the Chartering Organisations;  and CWG has accepted that the CCWG report meets its requirements and that this has been validated by the Chartering Organisations.

Whether Sunday (quite a busy day for many who are active in ICANN) is the best day for the prepare meeting, I have my doubts.

One thought I have:  should the ICG solicit a meeting with Larry Strickling to present our expected final proposal?

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: 08 July 2015 05:56
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin

I agree.

Hope we can confirm the Sunday timing soon.

Also, I suggest to schedule for a full day on Friday.

Paul.



On 8 Jul 2015, at 4:03, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>
> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in 
> case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for 
> the week ahead.
> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we 
> did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly 
> conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in 
> case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work 
> more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use 
> a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while 
> awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>
> wrote:
>
>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not 
>> only to you Russ:
>>
>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs 
>>> to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and 
>>> that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the 
>>>> ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, 
>>>> but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We 
>>>> could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual 
>>>> work after the ICANN meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we 
>>>> should meet before or after.
>>>>
>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>
>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>
>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>> Co-Chair
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul  8 10:55:42 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:55:42 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Thanks Alissa,

I'm fine with this approach.  I'm not sure there is a list of "still to be resolved" items, but your summary did not stir any memories of omissions in my mind.  I won't have the chance to assess before the call, but I think we should be able to prepare a list by the end of the week!

Also in my opinion, the points of reconciliation are well understood - in particular between CWG and CCWG. We did discuss this in BA and I thought we agreed to progress our work in the knowledge that we would need to link back at some stage to ensure that he CWG got what it needed and that there was coherence with the other proposals.

Best

Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 07 July 2015 23:36
To: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.

Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?

Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.

Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer's relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of the proposal. Again I don't think this is necessarily blocking on our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.

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 Jul  8 10:57:01 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:57:01 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning
	IANA	trademark and	iana.org domain name
In-Reply-To: <E47C9617-8EFF-487F-8DD6-38BF8042B963@cooperw.in>
References: <00c501d0b516$dde71000$99b53000$@afilias.info>
	<E47C9617-8EFF-487F-8DD6-38BF8042B963@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <fc601e07eaf340419724d41d66a6e0d7@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Alissa ..
Awaiting the subsequent update on the outcomes of both discussions ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 8:26 PM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name

My apologies for not forwarding this sooner.

Begin forwarded message:


From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org<http://iana.org> domain name
Date: July 2, 2015 at 3:31:36 PM PDT
To: "'Alissa Cooper'" <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>, <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Cc: "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr at difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>>
Reply-To: <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>

2 July 2015

Dear Alissa, Patrik & Mohammed

In response to your request on 19 June, we would like to provide you with additional clarification on the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal text with regard to the IANA trademark.

In order for PTI to operate the IANA naming function as envisioned by the CWG-Stewardship, PTI assumes it will be able to make use of both the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain and the IANA trademark in the performance of its work. Because ICANN is currently the registrant for the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain and the owner of the IANA trademark, and since PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, the CWG-Stewardship sees no reason PTI would be unable to make use of the domain name and IANA trademark as needed.

Beyond the expectation described above, addressing the domain name registration and trademark issues is beyond the remit of the CWG-Stewardship alone, particularly in so  far as these may relate to how the use of the iana.org<http://iana.org/> or IANA trademark impact the work of the other two operating communities. The text within the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal that refers to the trademark is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship, save for as presented as Annex S in the Final Proposal.

In effect, the Final Proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademark. Therefore it is our firm view that it is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. To reaffirm this, and to discuss a potential consolidated position, we have extended an offer to the leadership of the other two operational communities for a call on Tuesday, 7 July.
We then intend to provide an update for discussion to the CWG-Stewardship at our next meeting on Thursday, 9 July. We are happy to provide you with a subsequent update on the outcomes of both discussions.

Best wishes,




Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson
Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 19 June 2015 16:44
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> IANA
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain name

Dear CWG,

The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as subject to further negotiations.

During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. The CWG�s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term.

Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA trademark and domain name [2] should be transferred to an entity independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. [3]

Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extend to the domain name as well.

The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC.

Thank you,
Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG


[1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132

[2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://iana.org/> domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://iana.org/> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.

The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG<http://iana.org/> domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition."

[3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html

[4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/1b533bd1/attachment.html>

From kdrazek at verisign.com  Wed Jul  8 11:45:51 2015
From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:45:51 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>,
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>

That's my recollection as well. I also agree with Alissa that the dependencies between CWG and CCWG should not prevent us from initiating a preliminary report and public comment period, provided we enumerate and perhaps explain the key dependencies so the public is made aware.

Keith Drazek 

> On Jul 8, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Alissa,
> 
> I'm fine with this approach.  I'm not sure there is a list of "still to be resolved" items, but your summary did not stir any memories of omissions in my mind.  I won't have the chance to assess before the call, but I think we should be able to prepare a list by the end of the week!
> 
> Also in my opinion, the points of reconciliation are well understood - in particular between CWG and CCWG. We did discuss this in BA and I thought we agreed to progress our work in the knowledge that we would need to link back at some stage to ensure that he CWG got what it needed and that there was coherence with the other proposals.
> 
> Best
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 07 July 2015 23:36
> To: ICG Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
> 
> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
> 
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
> 
> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer's relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of the proposal. Again I don't think this is necessarily blocking on our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
> 
> 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 daniel at karrenberg.net  Wed Jul  8 11:53:17 2015
From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 13:53:17 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel
	support
In-Reply-To: <5594A11A.4050800@cgi.br>
References: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>
	<5594237E.1070509@cgi.br>
	<001201d0b468$4ce07000$e6a15000$@icgsec.asia>
	<5594A11A.4050800@cgi.br>
Message-ID: <1AF47D26-64E9-4462-9CC6-E05C65E2C240@karrenberg.net>

 I will be late for call. Stuck in Paris traffic. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/3b172ced/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul  8 11:57:31 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:57:31 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>,
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
Message-ID: <f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Agree .. I believe we have already accepted the CWG proposal with the implicit conditionality that lies within, so this should not hold us from proceeding .. 
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 1:46 PM
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

That's my recollection as well. I also agree with Alissa that the dependencies between CWG and CCWG should not prevent us from initiating a preliminary report and public comment period, provided we enumerate and perhaps explain the key dependencies so the public is made aware.

Keith Drazek 

> On Jul 8, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Alissa,
> 
> I'm fine with this approach.  I'm not sure there is a list of "still to be resolved" items, but your summary did not stir any memories of omissions in my mind.  I won't have the chance to assess before the call, but I think we should be able to prepare a list by the end of the week!
> 
> Also in my opinion, the points of reconciliation are well understood - in particular between CWG and CCWG. We did discuss this in BA and I thought we agreed to progress our work in the knowledge that we would need to link back at some stage to ensure that he CWG got what it needed and that there was coherence with the other proposals.
> 
> Best
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 07 July 2015 23:36
> To: ICG Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
> 
> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
> 
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
> 
> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer's relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of the proposal. Again I don't think this is necessarily blocking on our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
> 
> 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  Wed Jul  8 12:02:32 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 08:02:32 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>,
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
Message-ID: <559D1158.207@oracle.com>

I don't think we should say it was a failure of the group to provide 
accountability, but rather that it was impossible for them to complete 
all aspects of the accountability work due to external dependencies...  
Agree that it shouldn't prevent us from moving forward as long as long 
as we make the caveat of dependencies clear.

On 7/8/2015 7:45 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
> That's my recollection as well. I also agree with Alissa that the dependencies between CWG and CCWG should not prevent us from initiating a preliminary report and public comment period, provided we enumerate and perhaps explain the key dependencies so the public is made aware.
>
> Keith Drazek
>
>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Alissa,
>>
>> I'm fine with this approach.  I'm not sure there is a list of "still to be resolved" items, but your summary did not stir any memories of omissions in my mind.  I won't have the chance to assess before the call, but I think we should be able to prepare a list by the end of the week!
>>
>> Also in my opinion, the points of reconciliation are well understood - in particular between CWG and CCWG. We did discuss this in BA and I thought we agreed to progress our work in the knowledge that we would need to link back at some stage to ensure that he CWG got what it needed and that there was coherence with the other proposals.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: 07 July 2015 23:36
>> To: ICG Coordination Group
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>
>> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>>
>> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>>
>> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>>
>> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer's relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of the proposal. Again I don't think this is necessarily blocking on our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>>
>> 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 paf at frobbit.se  Wed Jul  8 11:54:06 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:54:06 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <35f53dcc4b2c4c7d80c554653780a54f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<35f53dcc4b2c4c7d80c554653780a54f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <85A90402-E549-46DD-8D17-5056773BA102@frobbit.se>

On 8 Jul 2015, at 10:12, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
>> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
>> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
>> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
>> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>
> My view is that we cannot consider the names proposal complete until Work Stream 1 of the CCWG is finished and accepted. I thought we had agreed on this in Buenos Aires.

We agreed the proposal is not complete and because of that can not be accepted without conditions before WS1 of CCWG is finished, correct. But similar conditions exists in the other direction as well.

So, although I agree with you, I do not see it as a blocking factor for us being able to move forward. At least given the data I have now. We should be able to continue with conditions. Conditions that we are to evaluate when both us and CCWG are "ready" with preliminary results. At that time, we know where we are.

The devil is in the details regarding "complete" and "finished". And of course "able to continue".

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/7aadb61e/attachment.sig>

From elise.gerich at icann.org  Wed Jul  8 13:20:44 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 13:20:44 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 -
	travel	support
In-Reply-To: <1AF47D26-64E9-4462-9CC6-E05C65E2C240@karrenberg.net>
References: <00a701d0b41d$6647fef0$32d7fcd0$@icgsec.asia>
	<5594237E.1070509@cgi.br>	<001201d0b468$4ce07000$e6a15000$@icgsec.asia>
	<5594A11A.4050800@cgi.br>,
	<1AF47D26-64E9-4462-9CC6-E05C65E2C240@karrenberg.net>
Message-ID: <34147C5D-5FF2-4106-852E-17E659631CCD@icann.org>

Regrets. Will miss call due to airplane flight.

Elise

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 8, 2015, at 4:56 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel at karrenberg.net<mailto:daniel at karrenberg.net>> wrote:

 I will be late for call. Stuck in Paris traffic.
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/f5d040ff/attachment.html>

From yannis at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul  8 14:38:33 2015
From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:38:33 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19: Chat Transcript and Attendance List
Message-ID: <57D1FB8C-55EA-4CE2-8CBD-DE03FE8E7345@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 18.  Please let me know if you note any discrepancies.  Thank you!

ICG Members:
Alan Barrett (NRO)
Alissa Cooper (IETF)
Keith Davidson (ccNSO)
Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)
Lynn St Amour (IAB) 
Manal Ismail (GAC)
Martin Boyle (ccNSO)
Mary Uduma (ccNSO)
Michael Niebel (GAC)
Milton Mueller (GNSO)
Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)
Narelle Clark (ISOC)
Hartmut Glaser (ASO)
Jari Arkko (IETF)
James Bladel (GNSO)
Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)
Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)
Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)
Patrik Fältström (SSAC)
Russ Housley (IAB)
Russ Mundy (SSAC)
Thomas Schneider (GAC)
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO)

Liaisons
Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison)

Apologies 
Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)
Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)
Paul Wilson (NRO)
Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)
Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)
Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)
Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)
Demi Getschko (ISOC)

Best Regards,
Yannis Li
ICG Secretariat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/c0da1d54/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Call 19 Chat Transcript.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 109250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/c0da1d54/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/c0da1d54/attachment-0001.html>

From yannis at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul  8 14:59:52 2015
From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:59:52 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
Message-ID: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

After verifying with the documents in dropbox, we do not find the exact match of the online published version.

Therefore attached the latest online published version scrapping from our website ianacg.org.

They have also been uploaded onto the dropbox under the FAQ folder.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/blq3etzjugl29g2/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.docx?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/562w2q1lw765x41/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.rtf?dl=0

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,
Yannis Li
ICG Secretariat

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-FAQ-Published Version.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 145072 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/8593fbc5/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-FAQ-Published Version.rtf
Type: text/rtf
Size: 120276 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/8593fbc5/attachment.bin>

From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Wed Jul  8 15:09:23 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 17:09:23 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>,
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>



CCWG and ICG are different bodies with different charters, deliverables
and processes. CWG have chosen to put dependencies on CCWG into their
response to us.  We can evaluate and produce our deliverable with what
we have received from CWG, IETF and CRISP without being dependent on the
CCWG output. We can also receive public comments on our deliverable
independently.

Of course both CCWG and us have to explain this to the public when
asking for public comments.

NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output satisfies
the CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is to produce a
sound and consistent deliverable with a public record about its
development. In fact I advise strongly against formally taking note of
CCWG's output while we do our work. That part is not our job and we
should not waste time analysing it and we should not exceed our remit by
addressing it.

Daniel


From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net  Wed Jul  8 15:09:23 2015
From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 17:09:23 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>,
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>



CCWG and ICG are different bodies with different charters, deliverables
and processes. CWG have chosen to put dependencies on CCWG into their
response to us.  We can evaluate and produce our deliverable with what
we have received from CWG, IETF and CRISP without being dependent on the
CCWG output. We can also receive public comments on our deliverable
independently.

Of course both CCWG and us have to explain this to the public when
asking for public comments.

NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output satisfies
the CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is to produce a
sound and consistent deliverable with a public record about its
development. In fact I advise strongly against formally taking note of
CCWG's output while we do our work. That part is not our job and we
should not waste time analysing it and we should not exceed our remit by
addressing it.

Daniel


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jul  8 16:19:50 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:19:50 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>,
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> 
> NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output satisfies the
> CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is to produce a sound

That's precisely why the CWG proposal is not complete until they have seen, reviewed and accepted the final proposal of the CCWG. 

> and consistent deliverable with a public record about its development. In
> fact I advise strongly against formally taking note of CCWG's output while we
> do our work. That part is not our job and we should not waste time

This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal. 
NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA. 




From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul  8 18:14:36 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 02:14:36 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken list
Message-ID: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,
 
Please find the two lists for Call 19 below:
 
Action Items:

1. Mundy to create a draft write up for the ICG combined proposal assessment
regarding the relationship between Root Zone Maintainer agreements and the
NTIA criteria regarding security and stability, and circulate on the
internal-cg mailing list for discussion on the 15 July call.

2. Mundy to extract the list of dependencies referred to in the Names
proposal and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list.
 
3. Cooper to reformulate a draft of the question to CWG-IANA regarding any
existing CWG mechanism to recognize minority statements and circulate to
internal-cg mailing for discussion before sending to CWG next week.
 
4. Ismail to update the ICG FAQ and circulate it to the internal-cg mailing
list before the end of July.
 

Decisions Taken:

1. ICG to move forward with the public comment period as scheduled. ICG to
give clear direction to the public on what ICG is seeking comments about.
ICG to make clear dependencies between the CWG-IANA and
CCWG-Accountability’s proposals. ICG to coordinate with CCWG-Accountability
on their respective public comment periods to ensure public comments on each
proposal is submitted to the correct group.  ICG to retain rights at the end
of the process to decide whether a further public comment period is needed.
 
2. ICG to wait for more information regarding the IANA trademark issue from
the operational communities’ discussion. ICG to discuss this issue further
on the 15 July call after the ICG receives further information.


Best Regards,
 
Jennifer




From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul  8 18:25:37 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:25:37 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken
	list
In-Reply-To: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <EED363B0-1C31-4792-8437-1745CE492C04@cooperw.in>

I think it’s worth noting one more decision taken: we completed our names proposal assessment.

Alissa

On Jul 8, 2015, at 11:14 AM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
>  
> Please find the two lists for Call 19 below:
>  
> Action Items:
> 
> 1. Mundy to create a draft write up for the ICG combined proposal assessment
> regarding the relationship between Root Zone Maintainer agreements and the
> NTIA criteria regarding security and stability, and circulate on the
> internal-cg mailing list for discussion on the 15 July call.
> 
> 2. Mundy to extract the list of dependencies referred to in the Names
> proposal and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list.
>  
> 3. Cooper to reformulate a draft of the question to CWG-IANA regarding any
> existing CWG mechanism to recognize minority statements and circulate to
> internal-cg mailing for discussion before sending to CWG next week.
>  
> 4. Ismail to update the ICG FAQ and circulate it to the internal-cg mailing
> list before the end of July.
>  
> 
> Decisions Taken:
> 
> 1. ICG to move forward with the public comment period as scheduled. ICG to
> give clear direction to the public on what ICG is seeking comments about.
> ICG to make clear dependencies between the CWG-IANA and
> CCWG-Accountability’s proposals. ICG to coordinate with CCWG-Accountability
> on their respective public comment periods to ensure public comments on each
> proposal is submitted to the correct group.  ICG to retain rights at the end
> of the process to decide whether a further public comment period is needed.
>  
> 2. ICG to wait for more information regarding the IANA trademark issue from
> the operational communities’ discussion. ICG to discuss this issue further
> on the 15 July call after the ICG receives further information.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From housley at vigilsec.com  Wed Jul  8 19:00:50 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:00:50 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] This is my about iana.org
In-Reply-To: <A52DACB6-05CD-4147-BE02-B1FA8EFE71A8@gmail.com>
References: <A52DACB6-05CD-4147-BE02-B1FA8EFE71A8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B66BE77B-33FC-4630-9FB4-4B00BBC21605@vigilsec.com>

Kou:

I gather that the quoted statement comes from the ICANN Board.  Your note is not clear about that.  Please confirm.

Assuming that this is from the ICANN Board, it raises two questions:

(1) The statement says that "in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay.”  On page 10 of the CRISP proposal there is an explicit requirement regarding the trademark and domain name, and it seems to be in conflict with the statement.  The CRISP proposal requires more than right to use; it requires the transfer of the trademark and the domain name.  Does the statement mean that the ICANN Board would be unwilling to transfer the trademark and domain name?

Second, the statement says that rights to use the IANA-related IPR will be granted "to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate.” Does mean that the ICANN Board would be unwilling to grant rights to multiple entities in the event that different operational communities select different operators?

Russ


On Jul 2, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote:

> This is my comment about iana.org :
> 
> 
> "ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG and the IANA trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's performance of the IANA functions. The board recognizes that the community is considering different models for the maintenance of the iana.org domain name and the related trademarks.
> 
> The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the  intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate.
> 
> It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the operational communities.”
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Kuo Wu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150708/2ffca66d/attachment.html>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Wed Jul  8 20:00:47 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:00:47 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG Proposal Dependencies on CCWG process Question
	from ICG Call #19
Message-ID: <691D2430-4F41-4E47-A930-C9ED679C0FB9@tislabs.com>


Gentle-folk,

On today's ICG call #19, there was a fair bit of discussion about the amount and type of dependencies that the CWG-Stewardship Proposal has on the results of the CCWG-Accountability (Workstream 1) process.  As I did my individual review of the CWG Proposal, I noted that there were a sizeable number of sections in the Proposal that mentioned one or more individual dependencies as well as what looks to be a "consolidated list" of the dependencies on pages 20 & 21.  

Although I did not see any inconsistancies or gaps between the dependencies identified in various parts of the Proposal and the "consolidated list", other ICG members might have more insight into this area.  So, I would like to ask if others have any comments or thoughts on the following questions:

- Do the dependencies listed in the CWG-Stewardship proposal on pages 20 & 21 (paragraph 106) adequately address the dependency points raised in various other parts of the CWG-Stewardship proposal?

- Are there any clarification or statements that the ICG should make or ask about the dependencies or any (possible) inconsistencies?


Russ M

p.s. As requested on the call, I have extracted the "consolidated list" sub-section titles as well as the full text below (any cut-and-paste errors are mine). I have not tried to list the various sections where individual dependencies are identified:

----> titles from "CWG dependency consolidated list" from page 20 & 21 of the CWG proposal <-----

1. ICANN Budget and IANA Budget.
2. Community Empowerment Mechanisms.
3. IFR.
4. CSC.
5. Separation Process.
6. Appeal mechanism.
7. Fundamental bylaws.

----> full text of "CWG dependency consolidated list" from page 20 & 21 of the CWG proposal <-----

The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG- Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision. Specifically, the proposed legal structure and overall CWG-Stewardship proposal requires ICANN accountability in the following respects:

1. ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. The ability for the community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review.

2. Community Empowerment Mechanisms. The empowerment of the multistakeholder community to have the following rights with respect to the ICANN Board, the exercise of which should be ensured by the related creation of a stakeholder community / member group:

(a) The ability to appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board and to recall the entire ICANN Board;

(b) The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA functions) by reviewing and approving (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IFR or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN budget; and

(c) The ability to approve amendments to ICANN’s “fundamental bylaws,” as described below.

3. IFR. The creation of an IFR which is empowered to conduct periodic and special reviews of the IANA functions (see Annex F). IFRs and Special IFRs will be incorporated into the Affirmation of Commitments mandated reviews set forth in the ICANN Bylaws.

4. CSC. The creation of a CSC which is empowered to monitor the performance of the IANA functions and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO. The ccNSO and GNSO should be empowered to address matters escalated by the CSC.

5. Separation Process. The empowerment of the Special IFR to determine that a separation process is necessary and, if so, to recommend that a Separation Cross-Community Working Group (SCWG) be established to review the identified issues and make recommendations. See Annex L for more detailed information as to approval requirements with respect to the formation of a SCWG and approval of SCWG recommendations.

6. Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re- delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post- transition.

7. Fundamental bylaws. All of the foregoing mechanisms are to be provided for in the ICANN bylaws as “fundamental bylaws.” A “fundamental bylaw” may only be amended with the prior approval of the community and may require a higher approval threshold than typical bylaw amendments (for example, a supermajority vote).



From mundy at tislabs.com  Wed Jul  8 22:38:58 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 18:38:58 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>

Yannis,

Thanks for the quick response on this in the multiple formats.

Russ M

On Jul 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Yannis Li <yannis at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> After verifying with the documents in dropbox, we do not find the exact match of the online published version.
> 
> Therefore attached the latest online published version scrapping from our website ianacg.org.
> 
> They have also been uploaded onto the dropbox under the FAQ folder.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/blq3etzjugl29g2/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.docx?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/562w2q1lw765x41/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.rtf?dl=0
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yannis Li
> ICG Secretariat
> 
> <ICG-FAQ-Published Version.docx><ICG-FAQ-Published Version.rtf>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From kuoweiwu at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 22:42:47 2015
From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:42:47 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] This is my about iana.org
In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFC81E@ACCAN01.accan.local>
References: <A52DACB6-05CD-4147-BE02-B1FA8EFE71A8@gmail.com>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFC81E@ACCAN01.accan.local>
Message-ID: <7AE706B9-8C8D-43F1-AB37-E97961A72449@gmail.com>

I will check again, and reply to you ASAP.

Kuo Wu

> Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> 於 2015年7月7日 07:53 寫道：
> 
> Thank you Kuo-Wei
>  
> I am slightly confused as to the context of this email. Is this a statement from the ICANN Board as a whole? From whence did it come?
>  
> I’m sure it has been a welcome statement, if indeed it is now public.
>  
>  
> Narelle
>  
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Wu Kuo-Wei
> Sent: Friday, 3 July 2015 1:56 AM
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] This is my about iana.org
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> This is my comment about iana.org <http://iana.org/> :
>  
>  
> "ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> and the IANA trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's performance of the IANA functions. The board recognizes that the community is considering different models for the maintenance of the iana.org <http://iana.org/> domain name and the related trademarks.
> 
> 
> The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the  intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate.
> 
> 
> It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the operational communities.”
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Kuo Wu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150709/05ad7a22/attachment.html>

From kuoweiwu at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 22:43:46 2015
From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:43:46 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] This is my about iana.org
In-Reply-To: <B66BE77B-33FC-4630-9FB4-4B00BBC21605@vigilsec.com>
References: <A52DACB6-05CD-4147-BE02-B1FA8EFE71A8@gmail.com>
	<B66BE77B-33FC-4630-9FB4-4B00BBC21605@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <D4A08DCB-C881-4C66-AB75-0D923575BB9C@gmail.com>

Russ,

Thanks for your question, I will check and get back to you all ASAP.

Kuo Wu

> Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> 於 2015年7月9日 03:00 寫道：
> 
> Kou:
> 
> I gather that the quoted statement comes from the ICANN Board.  Your note is not clear about that.  Please confirm.
> 
> Assuming that this is from the ICANN Board, it raises two questions:
> 
> (1) The statement says that "in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay.”  On page 10 of the CRISP proposal there is an explicit requirement regarding the trademark and domain name, and it seems to be in conflict with the statement.  The CRISP proposal requires more than right to use; it requires the transfer of the trademark and the domain name.  Does the statement mean that the ICANN Board would be unwilling to transfer the trademark and domain name?
> 
> Second, the statement says that rights to use the IANA-related IPR will be granted "to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate.” Does mean that the ICANN Board would be unwilling to grant rights to multiple entities in the event that different operational communities select different operators?
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> On Jul 2, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote:
> 
>> This is my comment about iana.org <http://iana.org/> :
>> 
>> 
>> "ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> and the IANA trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's performance of the IANA functions. The board recognizes that the community is considering different models for the maintenance of the iana.org <http://iana.org/> domain name and the related trademarks.
>> 
>> The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the  intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate.
>> 
>> It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the operational communities.”
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Kuo Wu
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150709/c4b1757b/attachment.html>

From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Jul  9 06:49:32 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:49:32 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions
	taken	list
In-Reply-To: <EED363B0-1C31-4792-8437-1745CE492C04@cooperw.in>
References: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>
	<EED363B0-1C31-4792-8437-1745CE492C04@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <18c778d6e4a249e3b4e31ad3ecafc5d6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Alissa,
Would it be correct to say we have completed the names assessment before these three things are done? 

> -----Original Message-----
> > 1. Mundy to create a draft write up for the ICG combined proposal
> > assessment regarding the relationship between Root Zone Maintainer
> > agreements and the NTIA criteria regarding security and stability, and
> > circulate on the internal-cg mailing list for discussion on the 15 July call.
> >
> > 2. Mundy to extract the list of dependencies referred to in the Names
> > proposal and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list.
> >
> > 3. Cooper to reformulate a draft of the question to CWG-IANA regarding
> > any existing CWG mechanism to recognize minority statements and
> > circulate to internal-cg mailing for discussion before sending to CWG next
> week.
> >


From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Thu Jul  9 09:49:17 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 05:49:17 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken
 list
In-Reply-To: <18c778d6e4a249e3b4e31ad3ecafc5d6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>	<EED363B0-1C31-4792-8437-1745CE492C04@cooperw.in>
	<18c778d6e4a249e3b4e31ad3ecafc5d6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <559E439D.6040106@oracle.com>

we have reviewed the names proposal to the extent possible....

On 7/9/2015 2:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Alissa,
> Would it be correct to say we have completed the names assessment before these three things are done?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 1. Mundy to create a draft write up for the ICG combined proposal
>>> assessment regarding the relationship between Root Zone Maintainer
>>> agreements and the NTIA criteria regarding security and stability, and
>>> circulate on the internal-cg mailing list for discussion on the 15 July call.
>>>
>>> 2. Mundy to extract the list of dependencies referred to in the Names
>>> proposal and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list.
>>>
>>> 3. Cooper to reformulate a draft of the question to CWG-IANA regarding
>>> any existing CWG mechanism to recognize minority statements and
>>> circulate to internal-cg mailing for discussion before sending to CWG next
>> week.
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Jul  9 10:56:15 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:56:15 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken
 list
In-Reply-To: <559E439D.6040106@oracle.com>
References: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>
	<EED363B0-1C31-4792-8437-1745CE492C04@cooperw.in>
	<18c778d6e4a249e3b4e31ad3ecafc5d6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<559E439D.6040106@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <5571b956abb7494c8f95bca790e2e8ab@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Do we intend to synthesize the four written assessment documents into a single one and publish it? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> joseph alhadeff
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 5:49 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken list
> 
> we have reviewed the names proposal to the extent possible....
> 
> On 7/9/2015 2:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Alissa,
> > Would it be correct to say we have completed the names assessment
> before these three things are done?
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> 1. Mundy to create a draft write up for the ICG combined proposal
> >>> assessment regarding the relationship between Root Zone Maintainer
> >>> agreements and the NTIA criteria regarding security and stability,
> >>> and circulate on the internal-cg mailing list for discussion on the 15 July
> call.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Mundy to extract the list of dependencies referred to in the
> >>> Names proposal and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Cooper to reformulate a draft of the question to CWG-IANA
> >>> regarding any existing CWG mechanism to recognize minority
> >>> statements and circulate to internal-cg mailing for discussion
> >>> before sending to CWG next
> >> week.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul  9 11:27:07 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:27:07 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks a million Yannis ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 12:39 AM
To: Yannis Li
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Yannis,

Thanks for the quick response on this in the multiple formats.

Russ M

On Jul 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Yannis Li <yannis at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> After verifying with the documents in dropbox, we do not find the exact match of the online published version.
> 
> Therefore attached the latest online published version scrapping from our website ianacg.org.
> 
> They have also been uploaded onto the dropbox under the FAQ folder.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/blq3etzjugl29g2/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.docx?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/562w2q1lw765x41/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.rtf?dl=0
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yannis Li
> ICG Secretariat
> 
> <ICG-FAQ-Published Version.docx><ICG-FAQ-Published Version.rtf>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul  9 18:30:56 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:30:56 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <20150708102707.GL1947@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
	<02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>
	<D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se>
	<559C36BF.5030203@oracle.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE459@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<20150708102707.GL1947@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Message-ID: <1A9B749C-6A39-4A37-B9EC-68B1145C38B9@cooperw.in>

Draft letter text is below for your perusal.

—

Dear CWG,

The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard’s claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information. 

Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard’s comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim. 

A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.

Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150709/2a474b2e/attachment.html>

From elise.gerich at icann.org  Thu Jul  9 18:44:11 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:44:11 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>

Wolf-Ulrich,
We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as
to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and
the interdependencies of the functions.
-- Elise 


From:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date:  Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
To:  "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper
<alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc:  "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

> Kuo-Wei,
> 
> I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times
> in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in
> order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation.
> They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is
> crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
> system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
> Career plan of staff is one element between others.
> I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff
> liaison could gide us.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Wu Kuo-Wei
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: ICG Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the
> liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
> 
>>  Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>> 
>>  Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a
>>  few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>> 
>>  Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point
>>  out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of
>>  implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would
>>  be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference.
>>  Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
> 
> It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate
> the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input
> from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term
> stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the
> career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status,
> IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan,
> and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn
> IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but
> ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than
> SLA, budget,..).
> 
> Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my
> comment.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Kuo Wu
> 
>> 
>>  Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
>>  considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
>>  question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
>>  comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
>>  My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>> 
>>  Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
>>  relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I
>>  note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of
>>  the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our
>>  work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>> 
>>  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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150709/69370308/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150709/69370308/attachment.p7s>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Jul  9 19:01:19 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 12:01:19 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>,
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>

On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output satisfies the
>> CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is to produce a sound
> 
> That's precisely why the CWG proposal is not complete until they have seen, reviewed and accepted the final proposal of the CCWG. 
> 
>> and consistent deliverable with a public record about its development. In
>> fact I advise strongly against formally taking note of CCWG's output while we
>> do our work. That part is not our job and we should not waste time
> 
> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal. 
> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA. 

I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.

Alissa

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul  9 20:29:23 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:29:23 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>,
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <559ED9A3.6020906@oracle.com>

I'm a little confused here.  It seems that workstream relevance to us is 
not in whatever the output of workstream 1 for the sake of its 
substance, but rather how that output specifically impacts the proposals 
of the operational communities, names being the most drastic case in 
point.  It is the interface of the workstream 1 and the operational 
communities that concerns us, isn't it?

On 7/9/2015 3:01 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output satisfies the
>>> CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is to produce a sound
>> That's precisely why the CWG proposal is not complete until they have seen, reviewed and accepted the final proposal of the CCWG.
>>
>>> and consistent deliverable with a public record about its development. In
>>> fact I advise strongly against formally taking note of CCWG's output while we
>>> do our work. That part is not our job and we should not waste time
>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
>
> 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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Thu Jul  9 20:33:36 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:33:36 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <1A9B749C-6A39-4A37-B9EC-68B1145C38B9@cooperw.in>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>	<02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>	<D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se>	<559C36BF.5030203@oracle.com>	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE459@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>	<20150708102707.GL1947@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<1A9B749C-6A39-4A37-B9EC-68B1145C38B9@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <559EDAA0.7040106@oracle.com>

Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was 
open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that 
adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless 
exercise for reasons stated?

On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Draft letter text is below for your perusal.
>
> —
>
> Dear CWG,
>
> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: 
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. 
> We would welcome your comments on any of Richard’s claims, but we have 
> a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views 
> on his other claims for your information.
>
> Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the 
> proposal and the disposition of Richard’s comments in the public 
> comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further 
> comment on this claim.
>
> A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.
>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150709/14603879/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Thu Jul  9 20:38:28 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 20:38:28 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AC1162@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

That was also my understanding.  I think it is also the only reason why Larry Strickling sent his letter about timescales to the ICG and the CCWG, but not to the CWG.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 09 July 2015 20:01
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output 
>> satisfies the CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is 
>> to produce a sound
> 
> That's precisely why the CWG proposal is not complete until they have seen, reviewed and accepted the final proposal of the CCWG. 
> 
>> and consistent deliverable with a public record about its 
>> development. In fact I advise strongly against formally taking note 
>> of CCWG's output while we do our work. That part is not our job and 
>> we should not waste time
> 
> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal. 
> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA. 

I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.

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  Thu Jul  9 22:30:12 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 15:30:12 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
Message-ID: <0DC13FC9-FF19-4A72-AA8D-6880D1896E18@cooperw.in>

We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of our public comment period and I’d like to continue that here.

Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call that we’re ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then we’ll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7 working days between the end of the public comment period and our F2F meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some form for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of course subject to change if we need to change it.

Thoughts?

Alissa

From housley at vigilsec.com  Thu Jul  9 23:10:25 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:10:25 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <0DC13FC9-FF19-4A72-AA8D-6880D1896E18@cooperw.in>
References: <0DC13FC9-FF19-4A72-AA8D-6880D1896E18@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <3ACD6BCD-F75D-49C7-B063-BC5C07F3E0C2@vigilsec.com>

I think that 30 days is sufficient.  There are many things that are less than 30 days in IETF processes, but I understand that other groups use longer time frames.  The ICG could really use the additional 10 days to process the comments.  We know that the vast majority of the comments will come in on the final days.

Russ


On Jul 9, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of our public comment period and I’d like to continue that here.
> 
> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call that we’re ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then we’ll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7 working days between the end of the public comment period and our F2F meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some form for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of course subject to change if we need to change it.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Alissa
> 



From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Thu Jul  9 23:14:21 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:14:21 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Public_comment_period?=
Message-ID: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>

A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as credible.. we need at least 2 weeks in september..

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period

We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of our public comment period and I’d like to continue that here.

Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call that we’re ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then we’ll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7 working days between the end of the public comment period and our F2F meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some form for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of course subject to change if we need to change it.

Thoughts?

Alissa
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Fri Jul 10 03:05:20 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:05:20 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <1A9B749C-6A39-4A37-B9EC-68B1145C38B9@cooperw.in>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se><02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in><D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se><559C36BF.5030203@oracle.com><4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE459@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk><20150708102707.GL1947@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<1A9B749C-6A39-4A37-B9EC-68B1145C38B9@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4FDBD58278344536A33D02C57860F95E@WUKPC>

I agree

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:30 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Draft letter text is below for your perusal.

—

Dear CWG, 

The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard’s claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information. 

Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard’s comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim. 


A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150710/2ce9b1f0/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Fri Jul 10 03:18:34 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:18:34 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
Message-ID: <10B180AD8AE64838BDDD4DDEEB4160D0@WUKPC>

I think, Alissas suggestion is the best we can do. Usually the biggest 
number of comments is submitted during the last 4-6 days of a comment 
period - may it be 30 or 40 days. And 1 week for ICG preparation prior to 
our F2F meeting should be granted.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Joseph Alhadeff
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:14 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org ; alissa at cooperw.in
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period

A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as credible.. 
we need at least 2 weeks in september..

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period

We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of our 
public comment period and I’d like to continue that here.

Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call that we’re 
ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then we’ll be looking 
at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to prep the web site and 
other materials after the call). A 40-day comment period would then end on 
September 8. That would provide 7 working days between the end of the public 
comment period and our F2F meeting to analyze the public comments and 
coalesce them in some form for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight 
timing, but doable in my opinion. So I think we should make this the 
provisional plan, of course subject to change if we need to change it.

Thoughts?

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 jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 10 09:08:29 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:08:29 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: Volume 7: IANA Stewardship Discussions
Message-ID: <00d701d0baef$ff461f00$fdd25d00$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG members,

 

Please see below for Vol. 7: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions – full text and link to the blog post below.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

----

 

 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions

 


Volume 7: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions


ICANN is compiling updates on the community discussions and progress of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe.


CWG-Stewardship


The final proposal by the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions ( <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> CWG-Stewardship) was forwarded to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group ( <http://www.ianacg.org/> ICG) following its approval by the CWG-Stewardship's five chartering organizations. Communication of formal approval by the chartering organizations, including any accompanying remarks, has now been published on the CWG-Stewardship's website:

*         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/GAC+Approval> GAC approval

*         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/SSAC+Approval> SSAC approval

*         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/GNSO+Approval> GNSO approval

*         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/ccNSO+Approval> ccNSO approval

*         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/ALAC+Approval> ALAC approval

Chartering organizations approved the proposal on the understanding that the necessary accountability mechanisms will be included in the final proposal for Work Stream 1 of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ( <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability> CCWG-Accountability).

While the names proposal has now been forwarded to the ICG, the CWG-Stewardship will not disband yet. Outstanding work still to be conducted includes:

*        Coordinating the issue of the IANA trademark with the protocol parameters and names communities <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#foot1> 1.

*        Finalizing the work on Service Level Expectations (SLEs)

*        Responding to any queries arising from the ICG's efforts to integrate all three community proposals into a combined IANA stewardship proposal

*        Monitoring the CCWG-Accountability's final Work Stream 1 proposal to confirm it contains all that is required for the transition of stewardship of the names function to take place

*        Participating as appropriate in the implementation process of the names component of the proposal

The CWG-Stewardship will continue to retain external legal counsel to assist in responding to any questions or input from the other operational communities the ICG on issues, such as the IANAtrademark issue, and in developing an implementation plan for the proposal.


CCWG-Accountability


During the  <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en> public comment period on the  <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-proposal-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> initial draft report of Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements, there were a number of community concerns about the proposal to move ICANN to a mandatory member or “designator” model. In response to these concerns, onsite at ICANN 53, the CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs encouraged all of its members to pitch any alternative model that might better suit the needs of the different communities that together create the ICANN community.

A potential compromise model called the “Empowered SO/AC” model emerged, in which eachSupporting Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC) has the choice of if, and when, to become a member (or designator) of ICANN. Under this model, all SOs and ACs would, by default, have all the benefits of the enhanced ICANN accountability framework, excluding the ability to use the courts as a method of enforcement. However, the power of enforceability could be claimed at any time, should anSO or AC choose to do so, by changing the SO/AC's status to become a formal member (or designator) of ICANN. Initial indications are that both the Designator and Member models could be applied under the Empowered SO/AC model, and the CCWG-Accountability is seeking legal advice on the most appropriate way forward. As the CCWG-Accountability is concentrating its efforts on determining an agreeable model before the target start date for its next public comment period at the end of July, the Co-chairs have  <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+Public+Comment+Review+delay> announced that the summary of comments on the first comment period, originally due 29 June, will now be completed by early August.

The CCWG-Accountability has created a third Work Party,  <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+-+Emerging+Issues> WP3, to examine issues that have been identified following the publication of the initial draft report, including staff and management accountability, SO/AC accountability and enhancement of diversity. The CCWG-Accountability is also developing a  <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Bylaw%20drafting%20process.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1435910021000&api=v2> process for working with ICANN on drafting Bylaws associated with Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements to ensure the Bylaws can be adopted in a timely manner.


ICG


The ICG completed its assessment of the names proposal submitted by the CWG-Stewardship on its call #19 on 8 July. Drafts of the assessments are available in the ICG's  <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/evaluation/Assessments/Names> Dropbox. It has also received a  <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html> formal objection to the names proposal from a member of the community  <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html> who had chosen not to participate in the CWG-Stewardship's work. The objection is on the basis that the final version of the names proposal was not presented for public comment before its presentation to the CWG-Stewardship chartering organizations for approval. As the ICG has a policy of non-interference with the consensus development processes of the three operational communities, the ICG is discussing passing the message back to the CWG-Stewardship for their comment.  

The ICG's Communications Sub-Group has developed a  <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ojeo7le2ey8ag9a/ICG-Comm-strategy-v5.doc?dl=0> communications strategy to engage the multistakeholder community as broadly as possible when the combined proposal is released for public comment. The communications strategy includes holding webinars to brief the community, producing graphics and slides to provide high-level overviews of the proposal, and translations of key materials.


Timeline for stewardship transition


On 6 July, the  <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/2015-07-06-Letter-from-ICG-to-to-NTIA.pdf> ICG replied to the  <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> NTIA's letter of 6 May, which asked for information about the timeline for completing the transition. The ICG noted there are three remaining phases of the transition process:

*        Transition proposal finalization – the ICG hopes to have the final proposal delivered to the NTIAvia the ICANN Board around the time of ICANN 54, 18-22 October 2015, or shortly thereafter. TheICG considers this an optimistic timeline.

*        U.S. Government evaluation – Based on the ICG's understanding of comments made by the NTIAduring ICANN 53, this phase would take 4-5 months, and would be completed around March 2016.

*        Implementation of prerequisites

Based on these three phases, the ICG has suggested to the NTIA that the earliest date at which the transition of stewardship is likely to be completed is July 2016.

The Co-chairs of the CCWG-Accountability have also  <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+ACCT+reply+to+letter+received+on+6+May+2015> replied to the NTIA, noting that the July 2016 completion date for their work is a best-case scenario, and that it may be necessary to extend the implementation of Work Stream 1 accountability mechanisms through to September 2016.

 <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/iana-update-605x443-09jul15-en.png> 


Updates on other transition-related activities


IANA-related discussions


*        On 8 July, the  <http://www.aftld.org/events/?_sfwCOM=Event:Show;233050> Africa Domain Name System Forum 2015 held a discussion on the IANAStewardship Transition.

*        On 3 July, the  <http://2015.rigf.asia/> APrIGF 2015 held a  <http://apps.rigf.asia/submission/proposaldetail?id=44> discussion on the transition as part of its Asia Pacific Leadership Program track.


U.S. Government processes related to the IANA stewardship transition


*        The Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2015, also known as the Dotcom Act of 2015, ( <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/805/all-info> H.R. 805) was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 June. It has now been sent to the Senate for its consideration.

*        The Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives held a hearing,  <http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/internet-governance-progress-after-icann-53?utm_content=buffer1b28a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer> Internet Governance Progress After ICANN 53, on July 8. Witnesses were ICANN President and CEO, Fadi Chehadé and NTIA's Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator, Lawrence E. Strickling. The focus of the hearing was a reporting on the status of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability.


Latest documents and drafts


4 Jul 2015

ICG –  <https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbvb8s9o2mrn2qd/combined-proposal-v2-MI.doc?dl=0> Combined IANA Stewardship proposal, Draft version 2


2 Jul 2015

CCWG-Accountability –  <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Bylaw%20drafting%20process.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1435910021000&api=v2> Bylaw drafting process


1 Jul 2015

CCWG-Accountability – Discussion Starters on  <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Staff%20accountability%20-%20discussion%20starter.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1436310131000&api=v2> Staff Accountability,  <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/SOAC%20Accountability%20-%20discussion%20starter.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436310225000&api=v2> SO/ACAccountability,  <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Board%20duties%20-%20discussion%20starter.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436310237000&api=v2> Board Duties, and  <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/Diversity%20-%20discussion%20starter.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436310251000&api=v2> Diversity


11 Jun 2015

CWG-Stewardship –  <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816> Final Proposal (approved by Chartering Organizations)


IANA stewardship in the news


9 Jul 2015

Icann Says End of US Oversight Role 'Strengthens' the Internet, AFP [EN]


30 Jun 2015

 <http://www.itworldcanada.com/blog/managing-the-internet-takes-patience-and-nuance-two-things-short-in-supply/375688> Managing the Internet takes patience and nuance: Two things short in supply, IT World Canada [EN]


22 Jun 2015

 <http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/USA-verlaengern-Aufsicht-ueber-IANA-noch-einmal-2719142.html> USA verlängern Aufsicht über IANA noch einmal, Heise [DE]


19 Jun 2015

 <http://www.interfax.ru/russia/448359> В МИД РФ выступили за регулирование интернета со стороны ООН и Международного союза электросвязи, Interfax [RU]


Upcoming key dates


9 Jul 2015

 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782830> CWG-Stewardship Meeting #61, 17:00-19:00 UTC


14 Jul 2015

 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782553> CCWG-Accountability Meeting #40, 12:00 - 14:00 UTC


15 Jul 2015

 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> ICG Teleconference #20, 19:00-21:00 UTC


17-18 Jul 2015

CCWG-Accountability face-to-face meeting, Paris


29 Jul 2015

 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> ICG Teleconference #21, 5:00-7:00 UTC


31 Jul 2015

Public Comment Period for CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) due to begin


Week of 3 Aug 2015

Public Comment Period on Interim Final IANA Stewardship Proposal, consisting of names, numbers and protocol parameter components, begins


3-7 Aug 2015

3 webinars: briefings on ICG combined proposal released for public comment (times to be confirmed)


18-19 Sep 2015

 <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-face-to-face-meeting-for-18-19-september/> 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 including 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 Enhancing 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  <mailto:accountability-staff at icann.org> accountability-staff at icann.org.

Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson 9 July 2015

  _____  

 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions#note1> 1The final proposal by the CWG-Stewardship contains placeholder text about the IANA trademark and domain name registration, and contains no concrete proposal on how these issues should be handled. The group  <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783129> provided clarification to the ICG on its Final Proposal text on 2 July.

  _____  

 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-discussion-09jul15-en.pdf> PDF 516 KB

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150710/4a951faf/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Thu Jul  9 23:10:29 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:10:29 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>

On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:

>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>
> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.

Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.

Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.

Nothing more, nothing less.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150710/aa0a3a0f/attachment.sig>

From paf at frobbit.se  Fri Jul 10 15:11:47 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:11:47 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <DBB630D2-8ED9-4327-BB51-67271167111C@frobbit.se>

Given the indication from many that Sunday might be busy for them, what about the following adjustment to the proposal from Alissa:

- Saturday before ICANN week, 13-17
- Sunday before ICANN week, 9-12
- Thursday just before or just after lunch, sync with CCWG
- Friday 9-17

    Patrik

On 7 Jul 2015, at 20:03, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>
> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week ahead.
> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>
>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only to you Russ:
>>
>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
>>>>
>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>
>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>
>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>> Co-Chair
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150710/f537dcec/attachment.sig>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Jul 10 17:10:03 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:10:03 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <DBB630D2-8ED9-4327-BB51-67271167111C@frobbit.se>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
	<DBB630D2-8ED9-4327-BB51-67271167111C@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <D94D8E22-C483-471C-81E2-698F7CCCADDB@cooperw.in>

Sounds good. Not everyone will be able to make both Saturday and Sunday, but hopefully everyone can make it to one or the other.

On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> Given the indication from many that Sunday might be busy for them, what about the following adjustment to the proposal from Alissa:
> 
> - Saturday before ICANN week, 13-17
> - Sunday before ICANN week, 9-12
> - Thursday just before or just after lunch, sync with CCWG
> - Friday 9-17
> 
>    Patrik
> 
> On 7 Jul 2015, at 20:03, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
>> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>> 
>> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week ahead.
>> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
>> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only to you Russ:
>>> 
>>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>> 
>>> Patrik
>>> 
>>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>> 
>>>> Russ
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>>> Co-Chair
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul 10 17:33:23 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:33:23 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <D94D8E22-C483-471C-81E2-698F7CCCADDB@cooperw.in>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
	<DBB630D2-8ED9-4327-BB51-67271167111C@frobbit.se>
	<D94D8E22-C483-471C-81E2-698F7CCCADDB@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <23678CE5-21F5-4F08-8AA6-195125295686@frobbit.se>

I also did not want to start too early Sat to give the ability for people to arrive Sat morning.

   Patrik

On 10 Jul 2015, at 19:10, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Sounds good. Not everyone will be able to make both Saturday and Sunday, but hopefully everyone can make it to one or the other.
>
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>
>> Given the indication from many that Sunday might be busy for them, what about the following adjustment to the proposal from Alissa:
>>
>> - Saturday before ICANN week, 13-17
>> - Sunday before ICANN week, 9-12
>> - Thursday just before or just after lunch, sync with CCWG
>> - Friday 9-17
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 20:03, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>>>
>>> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week ahead.
>>> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
>>> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting USG review and implementation finalization.
>>>
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only to you Russ:
>>>>
>>>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>>>
>>>> Patrik
>>>>
>>>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Russ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the ICANN meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should meet before or after.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>>>> Co-Chair
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150710/d13afe93/attachment.sig>

From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jul 10 21:56:00 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:56:00 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AC1162@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AC1162@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <a5c8ef5519394e479020ccc8c1ff0a0e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

To Martin B:
I don't get your point, Martin. If the CCWG plan is out of our remit, why would he have sent that letter to ICG and CCWG, but not CWG? 

To Joe A.
What is Work Stream 1? If you go back to the origins of this process, WS1 is all the accountability improvements that MUST be made before the stewardship transition takes place. This logically implies that CWG and WS1 of CCWG are, from NTIA's point of view, part of the same proposal. The transition cannot be made unless CCWG is done and accepted by all parties.  

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> That was also my understanding.  I think it is also the only reason why Larry
> Strickling sent his letter about timescales to the ICG and the CCWG, but not
> to the CWG.
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 09 July 2015 20:01
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output
> >> satisfies the CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is
> >> to produce a sound
> >
> > That's precisely why the CWG proposal is not complete until they have
> seen, reviewed and accepted the final proposal of the CCWG.
> >
> >> and consistent deliverable with a public record about its
> >> development. In fact I advise strongly against formally taking note
> >> of CCWG's output while we do our work. That part is not our job and
> >> we should not waste time
> >
> > This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally
> incorporated into the CWG proposal.
> > NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal,
> and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
> 
> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two
> separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the
> ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even
> necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication
> between the Board and NTIA.
> 
> 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 mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jul 10 21:56:53 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:56:53 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <23678CE5-21F5-4F08-8AA6-195125295686@frobbit.se>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
	<DBB630D2-8ED9-4327-BB51-67271167111C@frobbit.se>
	<D94D8E22-C483-471C-81E2-698F7CCCADDB@cooperw.in>
	<23678CE5-21F5-4F08-8AA6-195125295686@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <a7224be2acba45749cdd033c1656993d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

I don't know if I have formally noted that I will need travel support to Dublin. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:33 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: ICG Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
> 
> I also did not want to start too early Sat to give the ability for people to
> arrive Sat morning.
> 
>    Patrik
> 
> On 10 Jul 2015, at 19:10, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
> > Sounds good. Not everyone will be able to make both Saturday and
> Sunday, but hopefully everyone can make it to one or the other.
> >
> > On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> >
> >> Given the indication from many that Sunday might be busy for them,
> what about the following adjustment to the proposal from Alissa:
> >>
> >> - Saturday before ICANN week, 13-17
> >> - Sunday before ICANN week, 9-12
> >> - Thursday just before or just after lunch, sync with CCWG
> >> - Friday 9-17
> >>
> >> Patrik
> >>
> >> On 7 Jul 2015, at 20:03, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >>> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
> >>>
> >>> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case
> we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the week
> ahead.
> >>> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we
> did in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude
> our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
> >>> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case we
> don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on the
> proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little time to
> discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting USG review
> and implementation finalization.
> >>>
> >>> Alissa
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only
> to you Russ:
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrik
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs
> to know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and
> that it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Russ
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after
> the ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before,
> but have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could
> also do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the
> ICANN meeting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we
> should meet before or after.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We need to decide shortly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Patrik Fältström
> >>>>>> Co-Chair
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jul 10 21:59:21 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:59:21 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
Message-ID: <3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day comment periods

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as credible..
> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
> 
> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of our
> public comment period and I’d like to continue that here.
> 
> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call that we’re
> ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then we’ll be
> looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to prep the web site
> and other materials after the call). A 40-day comment period would then
> end on September 8. That would provide 7 working days between the end of
> the public comment period and our F2F meeting to analyze the public
> comments and coalesce them in some form for discussion at the F2F. This is
> very tight timing, but doable in my opinion. So I think we should make this
> the provisional plan, of course subject to change if we need to change it.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 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  Fri Jul 10 22:17:24 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:17:24 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>

To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It is to do 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.

If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all traveling to meet in person when we won’t have done hardly any analysis of the public comments received at the end of the public comment period. Also, what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be upset by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of September as a “full week” even though it includes one day of August?

I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument. All of us and the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and making significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires, including joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals, flying around the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters can’t find a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and September to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not balance our needs against how little regard they will have given to the transition process. To put it another way, I don’t think we should blow our timeline to accommodate people who don’t care enough about the transition to comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.

Alissa

On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day comment periods
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as credible..
>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>> 
>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>> 
>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of our
>> public comment period and I’d like to continue that here.
>> 
>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call that we’re
>> ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then we’ll be
>> looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to prep the web site
>> and other materials after the call). A 40-day comment period would then
>> end on September 8. That would provide 7 working days between the end of
>> the public comment period and our F2F meeting to analyze the public
>> comments and coalesce them in some form for discussion at the F2F. This is
>> very tight timing, but doable in my opinion. So I think we should make this
>> the provisional plan, of course subject to change if we need to change it.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> 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  Fri Jul 10 22:50:01 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:50:01 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
	<B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <0E7B10C8-D967-4379-8EA5-D080C767B111@tislabs.com>


On Jul 9, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>> 
>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
> 
> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
> 
> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
> 
> Nothing more, nothing less.

I share Patrik’s perception of how the results of each process (ICG & CCWG [WS1]) will be processed.  I think the complex/tricky part we’re having to deal with is the information content of the CCWG [WS1] _might_ impact the information content of some part of the ICG consolidated proposal.  I'm not aware of any reason why the two reports would be combined - even if they do happen to be delivered at the same time to NTIA by the ICANN Board.

RussM

> 
>  Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Jul 11 02:24:37 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 02:24:37 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Alissa,
Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal for a 40-day comment period. 
I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
> 
> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It is to do
> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
> 
> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all traveling
> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
> public comments received at the end of the public comment period. Also,
> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be upset
> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of September
> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
> 
> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument. All of us and
> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and making
> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires, including
> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals, flying around
> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters can't find
> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and September
> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not balance
> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the transition
> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our timeline to
> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
> > lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
> > comment periods
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
> credible..
> >> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
> >>
> >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
> >> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
> >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
> >>
> >> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
> >> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
> >>
> >> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
> >> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then
> >> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
> >> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
> >> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
> >> working days between the end of the public comment period and our F2F
> >> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some form
> >> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
> >> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of course
> subject to change if we need to change it.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> 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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Sat Jul 11 05:18:58 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:18:58 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <D94D8E22-C483-471C-81E2-698F7CCCADDB@cooperw.in>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se><3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com><A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se><D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in><DBB630D2-8ED9-4327-BB51-67271167111C@frobbit.se>
	<D94D8E22-C483-471C-81E2-698F7CCCADDB@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <36535FB34515444DBD1FEF543F394877@WUKPC>

Sounds good to me as well


Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Alissa Cooper
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 1:10 AM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin

Sounds good. Not everyone will be able to make both Saturday and Sunday, but 
hopefully everyone can make it to one or the other.

On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> Given the indication from many that Sunday might be busy for them, what 
> about the following adjustment to the proposal from Alissa:
>
> - Saturday before ICANN week, 13-17
> - Sunday before ICANN week, 9-12
> - Thursday just before or just after lunch, sync with CCWG
> - Friday 9-17
>
>    Patrik
>
> On 7 Jul 2015, at 20:03, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>> My suggestion would be that we plan to meet for:
>>
>> - a couple of hours at the beginning of the ICANN week (Sunday?) in case 
>> we have any final tasks to do related to the proposal or prep for the 
>> week ahead.
>> - a working session on the Thursday of ICANN week, similar to what we did 
>> in BA (but hopefully after the CCWG’s last session) to possibly conclude 
>> our work and decide that we’re ready to submit the proposal.
>> - a half or full day on Friday after the ICANN meeting is over, in case 
>> we don’t actually finish during the week and need time to work more on 
>> the proposal. Or if we do finish during the week, we could use a little 
>> time to discuss communications needs and the ICG’s role while awaiting 
>> USG review and implementation finalization.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me ask a followup question which I forgot to ask, and this not only 
>>> to you Russ:
>>>
>>> What do you think should be on the agenda?
>>>
>>> Patrik
>>>
>>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 4:58, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the ICG should meet after the ICANN meeting.  The ICG needs to 
>>>> know that the CCWG-Accountability work has achieved consensus and that 
>>>> it meets all of the requirements for the proposal in hand.
>>>>
>>>> Russ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have moved back and forth between meeting before and after the 
>>>>> ICANN meeting. For the previous meeting we decided to meet before, but 
>>>>> have a "followup meeting" on the Thursday of ICANN week. We could also 
>>>>> do the reverse, one short prep-meeting and then actual work after the 
>>>>> ICANN meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Question from me is whether you, given the timeline, believe we should 
>>>>> meet before or after.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you all think about what you believe would be the best?
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to decide shortly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrik Fältström
>>>>> Co-Chair
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul 11 05:51:20 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:51:20 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>

Milton, others,

Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use Alissa bit more.

Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night, weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....

--->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.

A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce high quality result.

If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many people from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)

   Patrik

P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during the weekend to catch up!


On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Alissa,
> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal for a 40-day comment period.
> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>
>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It is to do
>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>
>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all traveling
>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period. Also,
>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be upset
>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of September
>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
>>
>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument. All of us and
>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and making
>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires, including
>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals, flying around
>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters can't find
>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and September
>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not balance
>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the transition
>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our timeline to
>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
>>> comment periods
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
>> credible..
>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>
>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>
>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then
>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our F2F
>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some form
>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of course
>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/4a4bfb29/attachment.sig>

From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Sat Jul 11 08:19:33 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:19:33 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <0E7B10C8-D967-4379-8EA5-D080C767B111@tislabs.com>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
	<B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
	<0E7B10C8-D967-4379-8EA5-D080C767B111@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <4927BD96-C858-4C76-A28C-C45B996C6945@t-online.de>

I also understand these are separate processes but linked at least through the CWG proposal. As to how the CWG is formally dealing with the CCWG recommendations in order to make there own proposal "complete" is up to them.

Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone

> Am 11.07.2015 um 06:50 schrieb Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 9, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>>> 
>>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
>> 
>> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
>> 
>> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
>> 
>> Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I share Patrik’s perception of how the results of each process (ICG & CCWG [WS1]) will be processed.  I think the complex/tricky part we’re having to deal with is the information content of the CCWG [WS1] _might_ impact the information content of some part of the ICG consolidated proposal.  I'm not aware of any reason why the two reports would be combined - even if they do happen to be delivered at the same time to NTIA by the ICANN Board.
> 
> RussM
> 
>> 
>> 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  Sat Jul 11 12:42:24 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:42:24 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>

Colleagues

I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you need not impress on me the fact that people work and have responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a very broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete this work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.

Joe

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
> Milton, others,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use Alissa bit more.
> 
> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night, weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
> 
> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
> 
> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce high quality result.
> 
> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many people from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
> 
>   Patrik
> 
> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during the weekend to catch up!
> 
> 
>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>> Alissa,
>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal for a 40-day comment period.
>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
>> 
>> --MM
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>> 
>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It is to do
>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>> 
>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
>>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all traveling
>>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
>>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period. Also,
>>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be upset
>>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of September
>>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
>>> 
>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument. All of us and
>>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and making
>>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires, including
>>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
>>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals, flying around
>>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
>>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters can't find
>>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and September
>>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not balance
>>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the transition
>>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our timeline to
>>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
>>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
>>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
>>>> comment periods
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> 
>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
>>> credible..
>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>> 
>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
>>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
>>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then
>>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
>>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
>>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
>>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our F2F
>>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some form
>>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
>>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of course
>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Sat Jul 11 12:46:59 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:46:59 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
	<B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <19C1318D-25BF-4377-A334-63A9167AB665@oracle.com>

Agree, except to the extent that the names proposal may overlap work stream 1 - that will be incorporated.

Which brings me to a question I raised in chat on the last call.  Some proposals go into operational detail that is beyond our remit of consideration for transition.  Do we include those aspects directly in the assembled proposal, or do we include them as informative annex material?

Joe

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 9, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>> 
>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
> 
> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
> 
> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
> 
> Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
>   Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Sat Jul 11 13:40:00 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:40:00 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <a5c8ef5519394e479020ccc8c1ff0a0e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AC1162@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<a5c8ef5519394e479020ccc8c1ff0a0e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <55A11CB0.5080502@oracle.com>

Milton:

Agree on the combined timing, but not that they need to be the same 
document.

Joe



On 7/10/2015 5:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> To Martin B:
> I don't get your point, Martin. If the CCWG plan is out of our remit, why would he have sent that letter to ICG and CCWG, but not CWG?
>
> To Joe A.
> What is Work Stream 1? If you go back to the origins of this process, WS1 is all the accountability improvements that MUST be made before the stewardship transition takes place. This logically implies that CWG and WS1 of CCWG are, from NTIA's point of view, part of the same proposal. The transition cannot be made unless CCWG is done and accepted by all parties.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> That was also my understanding.  I think it is also the only reason why Larry
>> Strickling sent his letter about timescales to the ICG and the CCWG, but not
>> to the CWG.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: 09 July 2015 20:01
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output
>>>> satisfies the CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is
>>>> to produce a sound
>>> That's precisely why the CWG proposal is not complete until they have
>> seen, reviewed and accepted the final proposal of the CCWG.
>>>> and consistent deliverable with a public record about its
>>>> development. In fact I advise strongly against formally taking note
>>>> of CCWG's output while we do our work. That part is not our job and
>>>> we should not waste time
>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally
>> incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal,
>> and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>>
>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two
>> separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the
>> ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even
>> necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication
>> between the Board and NTIA.
>>
>> 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  Sat Jul 11 13:46:35 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:46:35 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken
 list
In-Reply-To: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <55A11E3B.80106@oracle.com>

Colleagues:

As noted on the call I have posted the Sidely Documents and my legal 
review on dropbox 
(https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jpyyxhbfmbbmr9r/AAAVqOWIXKdChQZ8708BvuhGa?dl=0).

In light of Russ's question on all the references to dependency I have 
created a document excepting all the references with the corresponding 
page number of the proposal.

I attach both the legal analysis and the dependencies document to this 
e-mail for ease of reference.

Joe

On 7/8/2015 2:14 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
> Dear All,
>   
> Please find the two lists for Call 19 below:
>   
> Action Items:
>
> 1. Mundy to create a draft write up for the ICG combined proposal assessment
> regarding the relationship between Root Zone Maintainer agreements and the
> NTIA criteria regarding security and stability, and circulate on the
> internal-cg mailing list for discussion on the 15 July call.
>
> 2. Mundy to extract the list of dependencies referred to in the Names
> proposal and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list.
>   
> 3. Cooper to reformulate a draft of the question to CWG-IANA regarding any
> existing CWG mechanism to recognize minority statements and circulate to
> internal-cg mailing for discussion before sending to CWG next week.
>   
> 4. Ismail to update the ICG FAQ and circulate it to the internal-cg mailing
> list before the end of July.
>   
>
> Decisions Taken:
>
> 1. ICG to move forward with the public comment period as scheduled. ICG to
> give clear direction to the public on what ICG is seeking comments about.
> ICG to make clear dependencies between the CWG-IANA and
> CCWG-Accountability’s proposals. ICG to coordinate with CCWG-Accountability
> on their respective public comment periods to ensure public comments on each
> proposal is submitted to the correct group.  ICG to retain rights at the end
> of the process to decide whether a further public comment period is needed.
>   
> 2. ICG to wait for more information regarding the IANA trademark issue from
> the operational communities’ discussion. ICG to discuss this issue further
> on the 15 July call after the ICG receives further information.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>   
> Jennifer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Review of Legal Analysis related to IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 40960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/87da1e05/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: depend.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 55808 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/87da1e05/attachment-0001.doc>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sat Jul 11 14:07:52 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:07:52 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
	<79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <DEE9C749-AE25-4325-A2E1-BF08A89840F8@frobbit.se>

Joe,

Well spoken, good advice!

   Patrik

On 11 Jul 2015, at 14:42, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:

> Colleagues
>
> I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you need not impress on me the fact that people work and have responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a very broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete this work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>
>> Milton, others,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use Alissa bit more.
>>
>> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night, weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
>>
>> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
>>
>> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce high quality result.
>>
>> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many people from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during the weekend to catch up!
>>
>>
>>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>
>>> Alissa,
>>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal for a 40-day comment period.
>>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
>>>
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It is to do
>>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>>>
>>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
>>>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all traveling
>>>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
>>>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period. Also,
>>>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be upset
>>>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of September
>>>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
>>>>
>>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument. All of us and
>>>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and making
>>>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires, including
>>>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
>>>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals, flying around
>>>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
>>>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters can't find
>>>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and September
>>>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not balance
>>>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the transition
>>>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our timeline to
>>>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
>>>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
>>>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
>>>>> comment periods
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
>>>> credible..
>>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
>>>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
>>>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then
>>>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
>>>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
>>>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
>>>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our F2F
>>>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some form
>>>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
>>>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of course
>>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/fad4527d/attachment.sig>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 15:33:40 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:33:40 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <DEE9C749-AE25-4325-A2E1-BF08A89840F8@frobbit.se>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
	<79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
	<DEE9C749-AE25-4325-A2E1-BF08A89840F8@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-LWvDC27GVMSOttYQ4PdJ4TL3f9fqhGPZ74WbdRYZ0t5w@mail.gmail.com>

1,First To Patrik
You said in yr message
 quote
*"I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy."*
Unquote
I do not know whom you are referring ?
However, whoever you had in in this kind of statement is INAPPROPRIATE
2.To Alidssa
Pls kindly maintain exact 40 days as public comment and
Pls kindly do not cancel the f2f nor change it date as I have booked the
flight ( to be cheap I book always very early) due to the fact that I have
to pay penalty of 500 Swiss Francs from my personal pocket
3. CCWG  the activities of which might have impact on our works relating ,
in particular, the CWG will held its last f2f meeting before its second
public comment soon. We need to carefully monitor that as I am doing
carefully
Then DO NOT FIX ANY TIME TILL 21 July when that f2f meeting is over
Kavouss  which


2015-07-11 16:07 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

> Joe,
>
> Well spoken, good advice!
>
>    Patrik
>
> On 11 Jul 2015, at 14:42, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>
> > Colleagues
> >
> > I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you
> need not impress on me the fact that people work and have
> responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public
> reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a very
> broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim
> that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their
> summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete this
> work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> >>
> >> Milton, others,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use
> Alissa bit more.
> >>
> >> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing
> this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night,
> weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is
> known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open
> with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
> >>
> >> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
> >>
> >> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see
> unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not
> planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce
> high quality result.
> >>
> >> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many people
> from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
> >>
> >> Patrik
> >>
> >> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week
> due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized
> differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have
> not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to
> prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a
> result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my
> [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during
> the weekend to catch up!
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Alissa,
> >>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal
> for a 40-day comment period.
> >>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe
> that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I
> don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
> >>>
> >>> --MM
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
> >>>> To: Milton L Mueller
> >>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
> >>>>
> >>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It
> is to do
> >>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
> >>>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all
> traveling
> >>>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
> >>>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period.
> Also,
> >>>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be
> upset
> >>>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of
> September
> >>>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
> >>>>
> >>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument.
> All of us and
> >>>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and
> making
> >>>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires,
> including
> >>>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
> >>>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals,
> flying around
> >>>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
> >>>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters
> can't find
> >>>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and
> September
> >>>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not
> balance
> >>>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the
> transition
> >>>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our
> timeline to
> >>>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
> >>>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alissa
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
> >>>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
> >>>>> comment periods
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
> >>>> credible..
> >>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
> >>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
> >>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> >>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
> >>>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
> >>>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment,
> then
> >>>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
> >>>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
> >>>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
> >>>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our
> F2F
> >>>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some
> form
> >>>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
> >>>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of
> course
> >>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/c9966304/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sat Jul 11 15:41:26 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:41:26 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-LWvDC27GVMSOttYQ4PdJ4TL3f9fqhGPZ74WbdRYZ0t5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
	<79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
	<DEE9C749-AE25-4325-A2E1-BF08A89840F8@frobbit.se>
	<CACNR4-LWvDC27GVMSOttYQ4PdJ4TL3f9fqhGPZ74WbdRYZ0t5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017D3594-5905-4543-82F4-D3898CAD83BB@frobbit.se>

On 11 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> 1,First To Patrik
> You said in yr message
> quote
> *"I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy."*
> Unquote
> I do not know whom you are referring ?
> However, whoever you had in in this kind of statement is INAPPROPRIATE

Dear Kavouss,

No one has so far requested any change, the contrary, and I am proud being part of this work where people are working so hard and delivering.

The discussion was about envisioned objections when we announce when we will have our public comment period, and I stated my view of reasoning for listening to those objections.

I will absolutely, as I expect everyone of ICG do, listen to real issues that might have impact on our timeline. But I will not listen to, for example, people in Sweden that point out the 40 day period is overlapping with their vacation.

> 2.To Alidssa
> Pls kindly maintain exact 40 days as public comment and
> Pls kindly do not cancel the f2f nor change it date as I have booked the flight ( to be cheap I book always very early) due to the fact that I have to pay penalty of 500 Swiss Francs from my personal pocket

Kavouss, not only you would be in that situation... I would also be in a similar situation, and many with us.

The train has left the station. Our timeline is as it is, and once again, I am proud of being part of a crowd like ICG that is working so hard trying to meet all our goals -- without at the same time cutting any corners or ignoring comments. Even if timeline is important, high quality work is more important.

> 3. CCWG  the activities of which might have impact on our works relating , in particular, the CWG will held its last f2f meeting before its second public comment soon. We need to carefully monitor that as I am doing carefully
> Then DO NOT FIX ANY TIME TILL 21 July when that f2f meeting is over

Noted. I will do the best I can to accommodate this.

   Patrik

> Kavouss  which
>
>
> 2015-07-11 16:07 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Well spoken, good advice!
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 14:42, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>>
>>> Colleagues
>>>
>>> I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you
>> need not impress on me the fact that people work and have
>> responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public
>> reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a very
>> broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim
>> that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their
>> summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete this
>> work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Milton, others,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use
>> Alissa bit more.
>>>>
>>>> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing
>> this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night,
>> weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is
>> known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open
>> with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
>>>>
>>>> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
>>>>
>>>> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see
>> unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not
>> planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce
>> high quality result.
>>>>
>>>> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many people
>> from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
>>>>
>>>> Patrik
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week
>> due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized
>> differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have
>> not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to
>> prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a
>> result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my
>> [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during
>> the weekend to catch up!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alissa,
>>>>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal
>> for a 40-day comment period.
>>>>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe
>> that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I
>> don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> --MM
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>>>>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>>>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It
>> is to do
>>>>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
>>>>>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all
>> traveling
>>>>>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
>>>>>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period.
>> Also,
>>>>>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be
>> upset
>>>>>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of
>> September
>>>>>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument.
>> All of us and
>>>>>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and
>> making
>>>>>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires,
>> including
>>>>>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
>>>>>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals,
>> flying around
>>>>>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
>>>>>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters
>> can't find
>>>>>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and
>> September
>>>>>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not
>> balance
>>>>>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the
>> transition
>>>>>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our
>> timeline to
>>>>>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
>>>>>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
>>>>>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
>>>>>>> comment periods
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
>>>>>> credible..
>>>>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
>>>>>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
>>>>>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment,
>> then
>>>>>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
>>>>>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
>>>>>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
>>>>>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our
>> F2F
>>>>>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some
>> form
>>>>>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
>>>>>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of
>> course
>>>>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/8266d589/attachment.sig>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 17:32:10 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:32:10 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <017D3594-5905-4543-82F4-D3898CAD83BB@frobbit.se>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
	<79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
	<DEE9C749-AE25-4325-A2E1-BF08A89840F8@frobbit.se>
	<CACNR4-LWvDC27GVMSOttYQ4PdJ4TL3f9fqhGPZ74WbdRYZ0t5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<017D3594-5905-4543-82F4-D3898CAD83BB@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-+LD5c_KO+3B39mGgA4HVmNH2n_oNYcVEyPX_=k=+JAVA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Alissa
Dear Patrik
Dear All Thank you very much to Alissa and Patrik for their clear position.
As for overlapping Vacation,we need to recognize that the entire community
carefully watching our reaction .
We have an established time line which MUST BE MET.
Each of us SHALL contribute and make sacrifice.
Perhaps there would be no or very few days of Vacation
I am attending several calls per day for various CCWG Working Groups and
sub working groups.
I have missed one or two but continue to actively attend.
We have an obligation to discharge as we have accepted to do so.
I sincerely encourage every body to adjust his or her personal program to
Transition activities .
We are  AN international custodian PUBLIC SEFRVANT
Regards
Kavouss


2015-07-11 17:41 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

> On 11 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> > 1,First To Patrik
> > You said in yr message
> > quote
> > *"I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy."*
> > Unquote
> > I do not know whom you are referring ?
> > However, whoever you had in in this kind of statement is INAPPROPRIATE
>
> Dear Kavouss,
>
> No one has so far requested any change, the contrary, and I am proud being
> part of this work where people are working so hard and delivering.
>
> The discussion was about envisioned objections when we announce when we
> will have our public comment period, and I stated my view of reasoning for
> listening to those objections.
>
> I will absolutely, as I expect everyone of ICG do, listen to real issues
> that might have impact on our timeline. But I will not listen to, for
> example, people in Sweden that point out the 40 day period is overlapping
> with their vacation.
>
> > 2.To Alidssa
> > Pls kindly maintain exact 40 days as public comment and
> > Pls kindly do not cancel the f2f nor change it date as I have booked the
> flight ( to be cheap I book always very early) due to the fact that I have
> to pay penalty of 500 Swiss Francs from my personal pocket
>
> Kavouss, not only you would be in that situation... I would also be in a
> similar situation, and many with us.
>
> The train has left the station. Our timeline is as it is, and once again,
> I am proud of being part of a crowd like ICG that is working so hard trying
> to meet all our goals -- without at the same time cutting any corners or
> ignoring comments. Even if timeline is important, high quality work is more
> important.
>
> > 3. CCWG  the activities of which might have impact on our works relating
> , in particular, the CWG will held its last f2f meeting before its second
> public comment soon. We need to carefully monitor that as I am doing
> carefully
> > Then DO NOT FIX ANY TIME TILL 21 July when that f2f meeting is over
>
> Noted. I will do the best I can to accommodate this.
>
>    Patrik
>
> > Kavouss  which
> >
> >
> > 2015-07-11 16:07 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
> >
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> Well spoken, good advice!
> >>
> >> Patrik
> >>
> >> On 11 Jul 2015, at 14:42, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
> >>
> >>> Colleagues
> >>>
> >>> I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you
> >> need not impress on me the fact that people work and have
> >> responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public
> >> reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a
> very
> >> broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim
> >> that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their
> >> summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete
> this
> >> work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.
> >>>
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>
> >>>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Milton, others,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use
> >> Alissa bit more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing
> >> this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night,
> >> weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline
> is
> >> known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open
> >> with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
> >>>>
> >>>> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
> >>>>
> >>>> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see
> >> unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not
> >> planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce
> >> high quality result.
> >>>>
> >>>> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many
> people
> >> from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrik
> >>>>
> >>>> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this
> week
> >> due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized
> >> differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I
> have
> >> not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to
> >> prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as
> a
> >> result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my
> >> [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work
> during
> >> the weekend to catch up!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alissa,
> >>>>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal
> >> for a 40-day comment period.
> >>>>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe
> >> that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as
> credible. I
> >> don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --MM
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
> >>>>>> To: Milton L Mueller
> >>>>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days.
> It
> >> is to do
> >>>>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
> >>>>>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all
> >> traveling
> >>>>>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
> >>>>>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period.
> >> Also,
> >>>>>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be
> >> upset
> >>>>>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of
> >> September
> >>>>>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument.
> >> All of us and
> >>>>>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and
> >> making
> >>>>>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires,
> >> including
> >>>>>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
> >>>>>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals,
> >> flying around
> >>>>>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from
> our
> >>>>>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters
> >> can't find
> >>>>>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and
> >> September
> >>>>>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not
> >> balance
> >>>>>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the
> >> transition
> >>>>>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our
> >> timeline to
> >>>>>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
> >>>>>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alissa
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the
> DC
> >>>>>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
> >>>>>>> comment periods
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
> >>>>>> credible..
> >>>>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
> >>>>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
> >>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> >>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length
> of
> >>>>>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that
> call
> >>>>>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment,
> >> then
> >>>>>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two
> to
> >>>>>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
> >>>>>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
> >>>>>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our
> >> F2F
> >>>>>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some
> >> form
> >>>>>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable
> in
> >>>>>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan,
> of
> >> course
> >>>>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/b7440b41/attachment.html>

From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 11 18:11:05 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 18:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-+LD5c_KO+3B39mGgA4HVmNH2n_oNYcVEyPX_=k=+JAVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACNR4-+LD5c_KO+3B39mGgA4HVmNH2n_oNYcVEyPX_=k=+JAVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1576181340.444112.1436638265851.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Thank you Kavouss, Patrik, Alissa and others for the constructive exchanges. I do not think the commitment of anyone in the group is questionable. 
I wish to lend my support to the 40 days comment period plan as proposed by Alissa and supported by others.However, I think it would be more meaningful to have the public comment on the proposal that is complete with the WS1 of CCWG incorporated by CWG and resubmitted to the ICG  (or fully accepted by CWG and communicated to the ICG), and also without any square brackets.Kavouss' advice point 3 is very apt.

Mary Uduma



 


     On Saturday, July 11, 2015 6:32 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
   

 Dear AlissaDear PatrikDear All Thank you very much to Alissa and Patrik for their clear position.As for overlapping Vacation,we need to recognize that the entire community carefully watching our reaction .We have an established time line which MUST BE MET.Each of us SHALL contribute and make sacrifice. Perhaps there would be no or very few days of Vacation  I am attending several calls per day for various CCWG Working Groups and sub working groups.I have missed one or two but continue to actively attend.We have an obligation to discharge as we have accepted to do so.I sincerely encourage every body to adjust his or her personal program to Transition activities .We are  AN international custodian PUBLIC SEFRVANTRegardsKavouss  

2015-07-11 17:41 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

On 11 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> 1,First To Patrik
> You said in yr message
> quote
> *"I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy."*
> Unquote
> I do not know whom you are referring ?
> However, whoever you had in in this kind of statement is INAPPROPRIATE

Dear Kavouss,

No one has so far requested any change, the contrary, and I am proud being part of this work where people are working so hard and delivering.

The discussion was about envisioned objections when we announce when we will have our public comment period, and I stated my view of reasoning for listening to those objections.

I will absolutely, as I expect everyone of ICG do, listen to real issues that might have impact on our timeline. But I will not listen to, for example, people in Sweden that point out the 40 day period is overlapping with their vacation.

> 2.To Alidssa
> Pls kindly maintain exact 40 days as public comment and
> Pls kindly do not cancel the f2f nor change it date as I have booked the flight ( to be cheap I book always very early) due to the fact that I have to pay penalty of 500 Swiss Francs from my personal pocket

Kavouss, not only you would be in that situation... I would also be in a similar situation, and many with us.

The train has left the station. Our timeline is as it is, and once again, I am proud of being part of a crowd like ICG that is working so hard trying to meet all our goals -- without at the same time cutting any corners or ignoring comments. Even if timeline is important, high quality work is more important.

> 3. CCWG  the activities of which might have impact on our works relating , in particular, the CWG will held its last f2f meeting before its second public comment soon. We need to carefully monitor that as I am doing carefully
> Then DO NOT FIX ANY TIME TILL 21 July when that f2f meeting is over

Noted. I will do the best I can to accommodate this.

   Patrik

> Kavouss  which
>
>
> 2015-07-11 16:07 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Well spoken, good advice!
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 14:42, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>>
>>> Colleagues
>>>
>>> I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you
>> need not impress on me the fact that people work and have
>> responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public
>> reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a very
>> broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim
>> that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their
>> summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete this
>> work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Milton, others,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use
>> Alissa bit more.
>>>>
>>>> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing
>> this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night,
>> weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is
>> known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open
>> with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
>>>>
>>>> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
>>>>
>>>> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see
>> unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not
>> planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce
>> high quality result.
>>>>
>>>> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many people
>> from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
>>>>
>>>> Patrik
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week
>> due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized
>> differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have
>> not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to
>> prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a
>> result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my
>> [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during
>> the weekend to catch up!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alissa,
>>>>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal
>> for a 40-day comment period.
>>>>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe
>> that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I
>> don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> --MM
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>>>>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>>>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It
>> is to do
>>>>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
>>>>>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all
>> traveling
>>>>>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
>>>>>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period.
>> Also,
>>>>>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be
>> upset
>>>>>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of
>> September
>>>>>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument.
>> All of us and
>>>>>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and
>> making
>>>>>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires,
>> including
>>>>>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
>>>>>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals,
>> flying around
>>>>>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
>>>>>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters
>> can't find
>>>>>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and
>> September
>>>>>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not
>> balance
>>>>>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the
>> transition
>>>>>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our
>> timeline to
>>>>>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
>>>>>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
>>>>>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
>>>>>>> comment periods
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
>>>>>> credible..
>>>>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
>>>>>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
>>>>>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment,
>> then
>>>>>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
>>>>>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
>>>>>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
>>>>>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our
>> F2F
>>>>>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some
>> form
>>>>>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
>>>>>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of
>> course
>>>>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/294e9c9f/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Sat Jul 11 19:39:19 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 03:39:19 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for the ICG face-to-face wrap up session
Message-ID: <00ea01d0bc11$4a0fa6b0$de2ef410$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the minutes to the wrap-up session attached and linked below:

 

Dropbox: http://icgsec.asia/1M2AOlZ 

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150712/cc04064e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-v1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150712/cc04064e/attachment.docx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Sun Jul 12 05:45:13 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:45:13 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG report in the combined proposal
Message-ID: <97AF9C18-136B-444A-886E-1B13444629F4@cooperw.in>

All,

Attached (and in Dropbox [1]) you will see my attempt to reflect our F2F discussion about the combined proposal executive summary/introduction. The document now has a slot for an executive summary (which still needs to be written) and the ICG report about the proposal. In the ICG report, I filled in as much as I could regarding the ICG assessment, including the NTIA criteria. Virtually all of the text I added is taken directly from existing documents, including our individual assessment sheets and the proposals themselves, with minor style modifications. So while at first blush this may look like a lot of new text, it is not. It’s an amalgam of a lot of text we or others have written and agreed to previously.

I included edits suggested during our F2F as well as items we discussed on the call last week concerning incompleteness of the names proposal, the root zone maintainer, etc.

There are placeholders highlighted in the text for items that still need to be filled in. I’ve asked Joe to provide a draft executive summary by the end of this week. For the other placeholders, I’m hoping that Manal can shepherd the process of getting those filled in. Some of them can’t be completed until we have completed our proposal assessment. The ones in Section IV.D.6, V, and VI could be completed now; I simply ran out of time to finish them and wanted to get this out to all of you sooner rather than later. 

I know we have a subgroup of folks focused on the proposal assessment leading up to our July 15 call but I wanted to share this now so that the rest of the group can review it and provide feedback. We will not have a lot of time to finalize this text before our July 29 call so please take a look as soon as you can and send comments to the list if you have them. My schedule is also very busy over the next two weeks because of the IETF meeting July 19-24.

The secretariat is working on integrating the names proposal into this combined document so do not be alarmed that Part 1 is still empty. It will be filled in soon.

Thanks,
Alissa

[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9njvw4kqcp6st/combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx?dl=0

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 193670 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/0e0c82f0/attachment.docx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Sun Jul 12 05:54:45 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:54:45 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
Message-ID: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>

All,

I’ve updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from the ICG report in the combined proposal.

Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this by July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.

I’m hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of incorporating feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly tied up with IETF matters next week.

Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final section, that would be great.

Thanks,
Alissa

[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34841 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/3cfc44ab/attachment.docx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Sun Jul 12 05:58:57 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:58:57 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
	<79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <29354F38-EF2D-4E0B-B77D-4DB0E4D5A196@cooperw.in>

Joe,

Apologies if my message was not clear. I was not questioning your dedication. I was grumbling about the situation that you correctly pointed out, which is that some people out in the world may question our process merely because it involves any work at all in the month of August.

I like your suggestion about announcing this week, let’s take it up at the end of our July 15 call.

Alissa

On Jul 11, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Colleagues
> 
> I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you need not impress on me the fact that people work and have responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a very broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete this work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>> Milton, others,
>> 
>> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use Alissa bit more.
>> 
>> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night, weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
>> 
>> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
>> 
>> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce high quality result.
>> 
>> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many people from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
>> 
>>  Patrik
>> 
>> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during the weekend to catch up!
>> 
>> 
>>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alissa,
>>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal for a 40-day comment period.
>>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
>>> 
>>> --MM
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>> 
>>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It is to do
>>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>>> 
>>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
>>>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all traveling
>>>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
>>>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period. Also,
>>>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be upset
>>>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of September
>>>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
>>>> 
>>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument. All of us and
>>>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and making
>>>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires, including
>>>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
>>>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals, flying around
>>>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
>>>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters can't find
>>>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and September
>>>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not balance
>>>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the transition
>>>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our timeline to
>>>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
>>>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
>>>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
>>>>> comment periods
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
>>>> credible..
>>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
>>>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
>>>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment, then
>>>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
>>>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
>>>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
>>>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our F2F
>>>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some form
>>>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
>>>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of course
>>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 06:06:59 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:06:59 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
In-Reply-To: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>
References: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-K8+FiFCbAW35BT399ufpkrdr7621WEQoyGgpj=qvV5_w@mail.gmail.com>

Alissa
Tks for edits and revision.
Will revert to you soon
Kavouss

2015-07-12 7:54 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> All,
>
> I’ve updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
> discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial
> work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from
> the ICG report in the combined proposal.
>
> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this by
> July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
>
> I’m hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of incorporating
> feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly
> tied up with IETF matters next week.
>
> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
> section, that would be great.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> [1]
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150712/3c2f8a19/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sun Jul 12 12:03:25 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:03:25 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG report in the combined proposal
In-Reply-To: <97AF9C18-136B-444A-886E-1B13444629F4@cooperw.in>
References: <97AF9C18-136B-444A-886E-1B13444629F4@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <d4dc52fe500f44869f2564210fe4d6c5@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa for your efforts ..
Ok .. Will do my best, hopefully with input from ICG colleagues ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:45 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG report in the combined proposal

All,

Attached (and in Dropbox [1]) you will see my attempt to reflect our F2F discussion about the combined proposal executive summary/introduction. The document now has a slot for an executive summary (which still needs to be written) and the ICG report about the proposal. In the ICG report, I filled in as much as I could regarding the ICG assessment, including the NTIA criteria. Virtually all of the text I added is taken directly from existing documents, including our individual assessment sheets and the proposals themselves, with minor style modifications. So while at first blush this may look like a lot of new text, it is not. It's an amalgam of a lot of text we or others have written and agreed to previously.

I included edits suggested during our F2F as well as items we discussed on the call last week concerning incompleteness of the names proposal, the root zone maintainer, etc.

There are placeholders highlighted in the text for items that still need to be filled in. I've asked Joe to provide a draft executive summary by the end of this week. For the other placeholders, I'm hoping that Manal can shepherd the process of getting those filled in. Some of them can't be completed until we have completed our proposal assessment. The ones in Section IV.D.6, V, and VI could be completed now; I simply ran out of time to finish them and wanted to get this out to all of you sooner rather than later. 

I know we have a subgroup of folks focused on the proposal assessment leading up to our July 15 call but I wanted to share this now so that the rest of the group can review it and provide feedback. We will not have a lot of time to finalize this text before our July 29 call so please take a look as soon as you can and send comments to the list if you have them. My schedule is also very busy over the next two weeks because of the IETF meeting July 19-24.

The secretariat is working on integrating the names proposal into this combined document so do not be alarmed that Part 1 is still empty. It will be filled in soon.

Thanks,
Alissa

[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9njvw4kqcp6st/combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx?dl=0



From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sun Jul 12 12:05:17 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:05:17 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken
 list
In-Reply-To: <55A11E3B.80106@oracle.com>
References: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>
	<55A11E3B.80106@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <f36692bf61c64e7bb72db96db5bb57de@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Joe ..
Most helpful ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:47 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken list

Colleagues:

As noted on the call I have posted the Sidely Documents and my legal review on dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jpyyxhbfmbbmr9r/AAAVqOWIXKdChQZ8708BvuhGa?dl=0).

In light of Russ's question on all the references to dependency I have created a document excepting all the references with the corresponding page number of the proposal.

I attach both the legal analysis and the dependencies document to this e-mail for ease of reference.

Joe

On 7/8/2015 2:14 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
> Dear All,
>   
> Please find the two lists for Call 19 below:
>   
> Action Items:
>
> 1. Mundy to create a draft write up for the ICG combined proposal 
> assessment regarding the relationship between Root Zone Maintainer 
> agreements and the NTIA criteria regarding security and stability, and 
> circulate on the internal-cg mailing list for discussion on the 15 July call.
>
> 2. Mundy to extract the list of dependencies referred to in the Names 
> proposal and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list.
>   
> 3. Cooper to reformulate a draft of the question to CWG-IANA regarding 
> any existing CWG mechanism to recognize minority statements and 
> circulate to internal-cg mailing for discussion before sending to CWG next week.
>   
> 4. Ismail to update the ICG FAQ and circulate it to the internal-cg 
> mailing list before the end of July.
>   
>
> Decisions Taken:
>
> 1. ICG to move forward with the public comment period as scheduled. 
> ICG to give clear direction to the public on what ICG is seeking comments about.
> ICG to make clear dependencies between the CWG-IANA and 
> CCWG-Accountability's proposals. ICG to coordinate with 
> CCWG-Accountability on their respective public comment periods to 
> ensure public comments on each proposal is submitted to the correct 
> group.  ICG to retain rights at the end of the process to decide whether a further public comment period is needed.
>   
> 2. ICG to wait for more information regarding the IANA trademark issue 
> from the operational communities' discussion. ICG to discuss this 
> issue further on the 15 July call after the ICG receives further information.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>   
> Jennifer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 12 12:06:12 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:06:12 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <29354F38-EF2D-4E0B-B77D-4DB0E4D5A196@cooperw.in>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
	<79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
	<29354F38-EF2D-4E0B-B77D-4DB0E4D5A196@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <a182b614f04d41e0bbf724666489fd6e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

I support what, I believe, the discussion has converged to ..
40 days public comment period (Jul 31st - Sep 8th) as initially proposed by Alissa, with an early announcement as per Joe's suggestion ..
The best at hand ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:59 AM
To: Joseph Alhadeff
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period

Joe,

Apologies if my message was not clear. I was not questioning your dedication. I was grumbling about the situation that you correctly pointed out, which is that some people out in the world may question our process merely because it involves any work at all in the month of August.

I like your suggestion about announcing this week, let's take it up at the end of our July 15 call.

Alissa

On Jul 11, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Colleagues
> 
> I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you need not impress on me the fact that people work and have responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a very broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete this work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>> Milton, others,
>> 
>> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use Alissa bit more.
>> 
>> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night, weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
>> 
>> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
>> 
>> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce high quality result.
>> 
>> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many 
>> people from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
>> 
>>  Patrik
>> 
>> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during the weekend to catch up!
>> 
>> 
>>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alissa,
>>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal for a 40-day comment period.
>>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
>>> 
>>> --MM
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>> 
>>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. 
>>>> It is to do
>>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>>> 
>>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, 
>>>> we should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us 
>>>> all traveling to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any 
>>>> analysis of the public comments received at the end of the public 
>>>> comment period. Also, what counts as a full week? Do these people 
>>>> whose vacations will be upset by a nearly 6-week public comment 
>>>> period count the first week of September as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
>>>> 
>>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument. 
>>>> All of us and the people in the communities have been going to 
>>>> great lengths and making significant sacrifices to do the work that 
>>>> the transition requires, including joining phone conferences in the 
>>>> middle of the night and from remote locales, staying up all night 
>>>> working on parts of the proposals, flying around the world to have 
>>>> contentious meetings, and taking time away from our families and 
>>>> day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters can't find a 
>>>> bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and 
>>>> September to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we 
>>>> need not balance our needs against how little regard they will have 
>>>> given to the transition process. To put it another way, I don't 
>>>> think we should blow our timeline to accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the 
>>>>> DC lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 
>>>>> 40-day comment periods
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
>>>> credible..
>>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length 
>>>>>> of our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that 
>>>>>> call that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public 
>>>>>> comment, then we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving 
>>>>>> a day or two to prep the web site and other materials after the 
>>>>>> call). A 40-day comment period would then end on September 8. 
>>>>>> That would provide 7 working days between the end of the public 
>>>>>> comment period and our F2F meeting to analyze the public comments 
>>>>>> and coalesce them in some form for discussion at the F2F. This is 
>>>>>> very tight timing, but doable in my opinion. So I think we should 
>>>>>> make this the provisional plan, of course
>>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul 12 12:32:09 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:32:09 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <559EDAA0.7040106@oracle.com>
References: <14AE33FA-A620-4E4A-A8A6-4DAC9C4A6A48@frobbit.se>
	<02F88EC8-9513-4E14-93A0-59279818F37F@cooperw.in>
	<D7AA7BDF-5BFE-4A8A-B8C2-AE22FE2E13D6@frobbit.se>
	<559C36BF.5030203@oracle.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE459@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<20150708102707.GL1947@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
	<1A9B749C-6A39-4A37-B9EC-68B1145C38B9@cooperw.in>
	<559EDAA0.7040106@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Fine with me too, including Joe's suggestion ..
Just one remark, can we replace 'claim' with some other word? Maybe 'point'?

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Draft letter text is below for your perusal.

-

Dear CWG,

The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard's claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information.

Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard's comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim.


A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.


Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG





_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>

http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150712/6da60bc2/attachment.html>

From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 12 14:07:31 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:07:31 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <170226252.733943.1436710051553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

All,I personally prefer the original formation of the questions from Patrik. If the ICG already has a position or answers to Richards claims or points as being expressed by Alissa, there is no need for the letter.
I would have preferred that ICG just raise  these issues with CWG and allow the Chairs to provide responses as they deem appropriate, in line with the previous method the ICG handled the same Commenter's claim on the other two OCs' proposals.
Should the ICG be seen as proffering responses to its own questions  to or clarifications from the OCs? 

Just a personal view.
Mary Uduma

 


 


     On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:31 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
   

 #yiv8838649093 #yiv8838649093 -- _filtered #yiv8838649093 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8838649093 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8838649093 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8838649093 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv8838649093 #yiv8838649093 p.yiv8838649093MsoNormal, #yiv8838649093 li.yiv8838649093MsoNormal, #yiv8838649093 div.yiv8838649093MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv8838649093 a:link, #yiv8838649093 span.yiv8838649093MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8838649093 a:visited, #yiv8838649093 span.yiv8838649093MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8838649093 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;color:black;}#yiv8838649093 span.yiv8838649093HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;color:black;}#yiv8838649093 span.yiv8838649093EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv8838649093 .yiv8838649093MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv8838649093 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv8838649093 div.yiv8838649093WordSection1 {}#yiv8838649093 Fine with me too, including Joe’s suggestion .. Just one remark, can we replace ‘claim’ with some other word? Maybe ‘point’?       Kind Regards --Manal    From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org]On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill    Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated? On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: 
Draft letter text is below for your perusal.    —    Dear CWG,     The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard’s claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information.     Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard’s comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim.  

 A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>. 

 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 
   
NiRA Email Disclaimer
This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or phone number or telephone +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng.

_______________________________________________
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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150712/24407ba5/attachment.html>

From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 12 14:16:25 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:16:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG report in the combined proposal
In-Reply-To: <d4dc52fe500f44869f2564210fe4d6c5@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <d4dc52fe500f44869f2564210fe4d6c5@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <1080911439.723751.1436710585839.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Thank you Alissa for the good work.Will  try as requested.
Mary Uduma
 


     On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:03 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
   

 Thanks Alissa for your efforts ..
Ok .. Will do my best, hopefully with input from ICG colleagues ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:45 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG report in the combined proposal

All,

Attached (and in Dropbox [1]) you will see my attempt to reflect our F2F discussion about the combined proposal executive summary/introduction. The document now has a slot for an executive summary (which still needs to be written) and the ICG report about the proposal. In the ICG report, I filled in as much as I could regarding the ICG assessment, including the NTIA criteria. Virtually all of the text I added is taken directly from existing documents, including our individual assessment sheets and the proposals themselves, with minor style modifications. So while at first blush this may look like a lot of new text, it is not. It's an amalgam of a lot of text we or others have written and agreed to previously.

I included edits suggested during our F2F as well as items we discussed on the call last week concerning incompleteness of the names proposal, the root zone maintainer, etc.

There are placeholders highlighted in the text for items that still need to be filled in. I've asked Joe to provide a draft executive summary by the end of this week. For the other placeholders, I'm hoping that Manal can shepherd the process of getting those filled in. Some of them can't be completed until we have completed our proposal assessment. The ones in Section IV.D.6, V, and VI could be completed now; I simply ran out of time to finish them and wanted to get this out to all of you sooner rather than later. 

I know we have a subgroup of folks focused on the proposal assessment leading up to our July 15 call but I wanted to share this now so that the rest of the group can review it and provide feedback. We will not have a lot of time to finalize this text before our July 29 call so please take a look as soon as you can and send comments to the list if you have them. My schedule is also very busy over the next two weeks because of the IETF meeting July 19-24.

The secretariat is working on integrating the names proposal into this combined document so do not be alarmed that Part 1 is still empty. It will be filled in soon.

Thanks,
Alissa

[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9njvw4kqcp6st/combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx?dl=0


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
NiRA Email Disclaimer
This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or  phone number or  telephone  +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or  its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng.



  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150712/7b0fdc8c/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Mon Jul 13 18:14:21 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 02:14:21 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,
	19:00-21:00 UTC
Message-ID: <00e801d0bd97$c02e8550$408b8ff0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG Members,

 

This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #20 is scheduled for:

 

**Wednesday, 15 July 2015**

at 19:00-21:00 UTC

See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1GqeGdv 

Announcement:
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/ 

 

You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call
details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email
(off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.
Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar
subscription function here:  <https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/>
https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know
at  <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> admin at icgsec.asia.

 

Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room -
<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To
avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio
from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you
plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to
mute the virtual meeting room.

 

Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue.
To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect
room:



If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please
let the Secretariat team know.

 

Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR,
RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please
note that Livestreaming translations in AR, FR and ZH will be available for
the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual
Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.

 

Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the
Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the
global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English
stream.

 

Agenda TBD

 

As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any
questions, concerns or need a dial-out.

 

Thank you!

 

Best regards

ICG Secretariat Team

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/29413af7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/29413af7/attachment.png>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul 13 20:39:48 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:39:48 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Face 2 face Dublin
In-Reply-To: <DBB630D2-8ED9-4327-BB51-67271167111C@frobbit.se>
References: <8566B2FF-8513-45CF-9CB7-6FE667273A70@frobbit.se>
	<3EB66768-DEBF-445D-81B0-4799F582091F@vigilsec.com>
	<A9F773FF-39B9-47D1-9EC5-C3737825FCFA@frobbit.se>
	<D39927C8-0142-4251-AA47-94FB3A7B6624@cooperw.in>
	<DBB630D2-8ED9-4327-BB51-67271167111C@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <FB1FB17E-9163-4597-A9D1-4E322104B79A@cooperw.in>

The secretariat is checking to confirm meeting space/support is available at the times below. If it is, we will go with this schedule for travel planning purposes.

Alissa

On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> Given the indication from many that Sunday might be busy for them, what about the following adjustment to the proposal from Alissa:
> 
> - Saturday before ICANN week, 13-17
> - Sunday before ICANN week, 9-12
> - Thursday just before or just after lunch, sync with CCWG
> - Friday 9-17
> 
>    Patrik



From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul 13 20:43:24 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:43:24 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <a182b614f04d41e0bbf724666489fd6e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
	<79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
	<29354F38-EF2D-4E0B-B77D-4DB0E4D5A196@cooperw.in>
	<a182b614f04d41e0bbf724666489fd6e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <463D9660-0073-4A3D-BD80-257BDED46396@cooperw.in>

At this point aside from Russ’s proposal for 30 days, I’ve seen support for a 40-day comment period running July 31 to Sept 8, with an early announcement to go out this week to give everyone a heads up (assuming we conclude our combined proposal assessment). If anyone else has an opinion on this, please send it to the list by 23:59 tomorrow, July 14. We should aim to close this out by the time of our call on July 15.

Alissa

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul 13 20:55:22 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:55:22 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #20, July 15
Message-ID: <BC06E316-2DAE-4D67-A12A-A007A48E8359@cooperw.in>

Please comment. It is hard to predict whether item #1 will take a lot of time or a little time. If it takes a lot of time, we will have to defer some of the other agenda items to mailing list discussion and/or our next call.

—

1. Combined proposal assessment

2. ICG report in the combined proposal
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9njvw4kqcp6st/combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx?dl=0

3. Public comment period duration

4. Public comment web site material
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0

5. Review of upcoming ICG commitments and schedule

6. Minutes approval: F2F #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eowcdcteahjyrp1/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day1-18-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qx5thshjftairo0/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day2-19-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgslbshjgo2nlrh/minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul 13 21:03:34 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:03:34 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <170226252.733943.1436710051553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<170226252.733943.1436710051553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F16D8093-A6C3-4BA3-A68A-8C5402A1793E@cooperw.in>

Hi Mary,

Fair point. I was trying to be mindful of all of the information we have already received from the CWG. To me if we just forward the question and ask the CWG to respond, we are shifting the burden back to them to tell us to go read their charter again, go review the public comment analysis tool again, etc. I think we should at least acknowledge that we are aware of the charter text and so forth that speak to the issues raised by Richard’s comments. But it’s true that we could do that and still have our query to the CWG be generic.

Do others have strong feelings about this?

Alissa

On Jul 12, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:

> All,
> I personally prefer the original formation of the questions from Patrik. If the ICG already has a position or answers to Richards claims or points as being expressed by Alissa, there is no need for the letter.
> 
> I would have preferred that ICG just raise  these issues with CWG and allow the Chairs to provide responses as they deem appropriate, in line with the previous method the ICG handled the same Commenter's claim on the other two OCs' proposals.
> 
> Should the ICG be seen as proffering responses to its own questions  to or clarifications from the OCs? 
> 
> Just a personal view.
> 
> Mary Uduma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:31 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
> 
> Fine with me too, including Joe’s suggestion ..
> Just one remark, can we replace ‘claim’ with some other word? Maybe ‘point’?   
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
>  
> Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
> On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Draft letter text is below for your perusal.
>  
> —
>  
> Dear CWG,
>  
> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard’s claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information. 
>  
> Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard’s comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim. 
> 
> 
> A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.
> 
> 
> 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
>  
> 
> NiRA Email Disclaimer
> This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or phone number or telephone +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150713/88515bd9/attachment.html>

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jul 13 21:35:16 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:35:16 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] MM combined proposal assessment
Message-ID: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>


A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner? 

MM response: 

A1. The IANA trademark and domain are not currently handled in a fully compatible manner in my opinion. Numbers and protocols have reached agreement on a compatible solution, but names has not. If one disregards the bracketed section of the CWG proposal that deals with the topic, one could say that all 3 proposals are compatible because there really is no proposal from CWG, and thus it does not get in the way of, or propose anything incompatible with, the solution proposed by the CRISP team and the IANAPLAN WG. However, I do not think it is optimal to consider the absence of an agreed proposal from CWG to be the same thing as the names community having reached consensus around a compatible proposal. It would be better for the CWG to explicitly indicate their acceptance of the CRISP team proposal, or, if that proves to not be possible, to propose an alternative that can gain the acceptance of the numbers and protocol communities. 

A2. This is not a compatibility problem, but some issues related to the legal separation of ICANN's IANA department from ICANN and the movement of its assets, personnel, etc. into PTI need to be noted. It should be clear from the CWG proposal that ALL IANA-related activities and assets, not just those related to names, will be transferred to PTI, or at least that is my understanding of it. If there is any doubt about this it needs to be cleared up. Further, both the numbers and the protocol communities, while not expressing objections to PTI, have indicated that they prefer to contract for their IANA functions with ICANN rather than doing it directly with PTI, even as ICANN contracts with PTI for the names-related IANA functions. To avoid any incompatibilities related to this, it should be made clear that ICANN will use, and is required to use, its affiliate PTI to perform the contracted IANA functions for numbers and protocols.
 
B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal? 

B1. All 3 proposals rely most directly for accountability on the right of the operational community to discard ICANN and select a new entity for the performance of the IANA functions. This means that if the status of the IANA trademark and domain are not resolved properly, the combined proposal could fail to deliver an appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanism. Any solution that involves retention of the IANA trademark and domain by the incumbent IANA operator would make switching IANA operators much more difficult and costly, with all that that entails for accountability. Thus, the IANA trademark and domain are not just compatibility issues but accountability issues as well. 

B2. I concur with the analysis of Russ Housley that "The CWG-Stewardship proposal depends on a yet-to-be-written CCWG-Accountability document." The proposal made by the CCWG on enhanced accountability must be acceptable to the entire engaged community, and fully meshed with the CWG-Stewardship proposal, before it can be considered as delivering an acceptable level of "overall accountability." 
 
C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?

C1. I believe there are potential workability issues surrounding the revision in the role of Verisign and its cooperative agreement. The CWG-Stewardship proposal is vague about the type of relationship between PTI and Verisign post-transition; and the NTIA is rather vague about the future of the Verisign-NTIA Cooperative Agreement. 

C2. I note that Section IV, which includes a subsection IV.C on the "Workability of any new technical or operational methods," is labelled as "under development" in the CWG proposal.


From pwilson at apnic.net  Mon Jul 13 23:57:44 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:57:44 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #20, July 15
In-Reply-To: <BC06E316-2DAE-4D67-A12A-A007A48E8359@cooperw.in>
References: <BC06E316-2DAE-4D67-A12A-A007A48E8359@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <0F953EA4-9B24-4840-921C-7DFF6DF02F75@apnic.net>

I’ll be in Shanghai and this call will be at 3am for me.  I’ll join 
if I can, but apologies in advance if I don’t make it.

(I will of course take inspiration and motivation from our hard-working 
secretariat, who’ll be on the same timezone)

Paul.


On 14 Jul 2015, at 6:55, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Please comment. It is hard to predict whether item #1 will take a lot 
> of time or a little time. If it takes a lot of time, we will have to 
> defer some of the other agenda items to mailing list discussion and/or 
> our next call.
>
> —
>
> 1. Combined proposal assessment
>
> 2. ICG report in the combined proposal
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9njvw4kqcp6st/combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx?dl=0
>
> 3. Public comment period duration
>
> 4. Public comment web site material
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0
>
> 5. Review of upcoming ICG commitments and schedule
>
> 6. Minutes approval: F2F #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eowcdcteahjyrp1/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day1-18-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qx5thshjftairo0/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day2-19-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgslbshjgo2nlrh/minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 14 01:14:26 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:14:26 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #20, July 15
In-Reply-To: <0F953EA4-9B24-4840-921C-7DFF6DF02F75@apnic.net>
References: <BC06E316-2DAE-4D67-A12A-A007A48E8359@cooperw.in>
	<0F953EA4-9B24-4840-921C-7DFF6DF02F75@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <721E326A-FA00-4C45-8593-ED181B3D2A5B@t-online.de>

Since being in Hangzhou - greetings to Paul in the neighbor city - same applies to me. I'll do my very best to join.
Regards
Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

> Am 14.07.2015 um 07:57 schrieb Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>:
> 
> I’ll be in Shanghai and this call will be at 3am for me.  I’ll join if I can, but apologies in advance if I don’t make it.
> 
> (I will of course take inspiration and motivation from our hard-working secretariat, who’ll be on the same timezone)
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
>> On 14 Jul 2015, at 6:55, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>> Please comment. It is hard to predict whether item #1 will take a lot of time or a little time. If it takes a lot of time, we will have to defer some of the other agenda items to mailing list discussion and/or our next call.
>> 
>> —
>> 
>> 1. Combined proposal assessment
>> 
>> 2. ICG report in the combined proposal
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9njvw4kqcp6st/combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx?dl=0
>> 
>> 3. Public comment period duration
>> 
>> 4. Public comment web site material
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0
>> 
>> 5. Review of upcoming ICG commitments and schedule
>> 
>> 6. Minutes approval: F2F #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eowcdcteahjyrp1/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day1-18-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
>> 
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qx5thshjftairo0/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day2-19-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
>> 
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgslbshjgo2nlrh/minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Jul 14 02:00:02 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 02:00:02 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken
 list
In-Reply-To: <5571b956abb7494c8f95bca790e2e8ab@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <006801d0b9a9$f4f8ebf0$deeac3d0$@icgsec.asia>
	<EED363B0-1C31-4792-8437-1745CE492C04@cooperw.in>
	<18c778d6e4a249e3b4e31ad3ecafc5d6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<559E439D.6040106@oracle.com>
	<5571b956abb7494c8f95bca790e2e8ab@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <c7572790dec8408c88cccb4e7fc5894b@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

I think it's a good idea .. 
Have we done this for the Protocol Parameters and Numbers proposals ?
With the 'public record' in mind, I think it's good to have one ICG assessment per proposal ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 12:56 PM
To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions taken list

Do we intend to synthesize the four written assessment documents into a single one and publish it? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> joseph alhadeff
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 5:49 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 19 Action items list and decisions 
> taken list
> 
> we have reviewed the names proposal to the extent possible....
> 
> On 7/9/2015 2:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Alissa,
> > Would it be correct to say we have completed the names assessment
> before these three things are done?
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> 1. Mundy to create a draft write up for the ICG combined proposal 
> >>> assessment regarding the relationship between Root Zone Maintainer 
> >>> agreements and the NTIA criteria regarding security and stability, 
> >>> and circulate on the internal-cg mailing list for discussion on 
> >>> the 15 July
> call.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Mundy to extract the list of dependencies referred to in the 
> >>> Names proposal and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Cooper to reformulate a draft of the question to CWG-IANA 
> >>> regarding any existing CWG mechanism to recognize minority 
> >>> statements and circulate to internal-cg mailing for discussion 
> >>> before sending to CWG next
> >> week.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Tue Jul 14 02:56:48 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 02:56:48 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #20, July 15
In-Reply-To: <BC06E316-2DAE-4D67-A12A-A007A48E8359@cooperw.in>
References: <BC06E316-2DAE-4D67-A12A-A007A48E8359@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <699f1ceb283042e3b87727c7c7ecd367@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa .. Like you said, it's hard to predict how long the discussion of item #1 will take  .. Let's play it by ear ..
Have we heard back from the CWG regarding the outcome of their discussions with the other two operational communities and internally, regarding the IANA trademark and domain name issue?
I think their feedback would be helpful and would guide our discussions on the mentioned agenda item ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:55 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #20, July 15

Please comment. It is hard to predict whether item #1 will take a lot of time or a little time. If it takes a lot of time, we will have to defer some of the other agenda items to mailing list discussion and/or our next call.

-

1. Combined proposal assessment

2. ICG report in the combined proposal
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9njvw4kqcp6st/combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx?dl=0

3. Public comment period duration

4. Public comment web site material
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0

5. Review of upcoming ICG commitments and schedule

6. Minutes approval: F2F #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eowcdcteahjyrp1/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day1-18-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qx5thshjftairo0/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day2-19-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgslbshjgo2nlrh/minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
_______________________________________________
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  Tue Jul 14 02:56:49 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 02:56:49 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
	<B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <ad9475182cfa42e9921325a810ed4179@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Don't we want to seek CWG input on this? 
How do they plan to approve the CCWG proposal? Is it just an announcement or is there something that needs to be reflected in their final proposal, edits?/references? By ICG?/CWG?

The names community proposal states:
" Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision."

Does this mean that if everything is implemented the final version stands as it is?

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:10 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:

>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>
> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.

Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.

Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.

Nothing more, nothing less.

   Patrik


From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul 14 03:22:14 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:22:14 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of
	the Internet unique identifiers " for ICG
In-Reply-To: <b13635efdbfa4f57832e431271b14d04@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <b13635efdbfa4f57832e431271b14d04@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <01d601d0bde4$49c33f30$dd49bd90$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG members,

 

Please see the AFRALO/AFRICANN statement as attached for your consideration.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Silvia Vivanco [mailto:silvia.vivanco at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:07 AM
To: admin at icgsec.asia
Cc: Aziz Hilali; Heidi Ullrich; Gisella Gruber
Subject: Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet unique
identifiers " for ICG 
Importance: High

 

Dear  ICG Secretariat,

 

On behalf of  AFRALO's Chair Aziz Hilali, please find attached the
AFRALO/AFRICANN Statement discussed and approved at the ICANN 53rd meeting
in Buenos Aires, entitled " Our views on the Proposed Future  Governance of
the  Internet  unique identifiers " . 

 

Please be so kind to forward it to the ICG  for its  consideration.

 

Kind regards,

 

Silvia 

 

 

Silvia Vivanco

Manager, At Large Regional Affairs

ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

 <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/2c63e960/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AFRALO-AfrICANN_Statement_Final_FR copy.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 98481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/2c63e960/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AFRALO-AfrICANN Statement_Final draft_En[1] copy.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 94354 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/2c63e960/attachment-0001.pdf>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul 14 03:55:05 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:55:05 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&A matrix for the operational communities' proposals
Message-ID: <01ea01d0bde8$e078f470$a16add50$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Per the open action item the Secretariat has taken, attached and linked
below is the Q&A matrix for all three operational communities' proposals.  I
note that there are questions that are unresolved right now (the document
title should probably change).

 

Matrix v3: http://icgsec.asia/1HF15zD 

 

Please note that I have moved the original matrix v2 from its location in
the 'FAQ' subfolder to the 'Evaluation' subfolder here:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Evaluation 

 

Please let me know if there are any questions or edits that need to be made.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/c2292cbd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of internally resolved questions-v3.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 19721 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/c2292cbd/attachment.xlsx>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Jul 14 04:36:18 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 06:36:18 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <ad9475182cfa42e9921325a810ed4179@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
	<B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
	<ad9475182cfa42e9921325a810ed4179@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <DAC1BC2B-D3D9-40DB-B529-48D6F32204B2@frobbit.se>

On 14 Jul 2015, at 4:56, Manal Ismail wrote:

> Don't we want to seek CWG input on this?
> How do they plan to approve the CCWG proposal?

Formally the CCWG proposal is approved when the chartering organizations of the CCWG so approve it. What rules and processes they use each one of them(*), is up to them. Just like the CWG proposal was approved.

It is up to us (ICG) to decide whether what we send in (which is a collection from the three OC) is something we feel can be sent in, and we already do sync with CCWG.

It is my view that it is up to ICG to, in sync with CCWG, ensure that our two proposals, regardless of how independent they are, do create together "the package" that Strickling has been asking for.

Because of this, I think it is up to both us (ICG) and CCWG to ensure that the proposals do not conflict, and the way we do that is to if needed ask CWG for clarifications. It might of course also be that CWG contacts us because of things triggered by the CWG and CCWG coordinating [simply because there are references between the two documents].

   Patrik

(*) SSAC is since one week back a chartering organization of the CCWG.

> Is it just an announcement or is there something that needs to be reflected in their final proposal, edits?/references? By ICG?/CWG?
>
> The names community proposal states:
> " Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision."
>
> Does this mean that if everything is implemented the final version stands as it is?
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:10 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>
> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>>
>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
>
> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
>
> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/d6e1be66/attachment.sig>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Jul 14 05:01:59 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:01:59 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of
 the Internet unique identifiers " for ICG
In-Reply-To: <01d601d0bde4$49c33f30$dd49bd90$@icgsec.asia>
References: <b13635efdbfa4f57832e431271b14d04@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<01d601d0bde4$49c33f30$dd49bd90$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <C114D1E9-555E-4C85-819D-4627C15AEA57@frobbit.se>


ICG do not have a mechanism for "taking things into consideration", so this communication is wrong and should have bounced.

Either parties can send things to the public forum of ICG where it ends up being public, and then ICG use our process for dealing with such input. Or people that have issues with process etc can contact our Chair, Alissa, which will then deal with the issue (keeping ICG informed etc).

We can not have "random organisations send mail to us".

So, this should have bounced and the sender should have been encouraged to file a posting if they so wished.

Jennifer, can secretariat please take care of this in an appropriate way?

   Patrik

On 14 Jul 2015, at 5:22, Jennifer Chung wrote:

> Dear ICG members,
>
>
>
> Please see the AFRALO/AFRICANN statement as attached for your consideration.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
> From: Silvia Vivanco [mailto:silvia.vivanco at icann.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:07 AM
> To: admin at icgsec.asia
> Cc: Aziz Hilali; Heidi Ullrich; Gisella Gruber
> Subject: Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers " for ICG
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Dear  ICG Secretariat,
>
>
>
> On behalf of  AFRALO's Chair Aziz Hilali, please find attached the AFRALO/AFRICANN Statement discussed and approved at the ICANN 53rd meeting in Buenos Aires, entitled " Our views on the Proposed Future  Governance of the  Internet  unique identifiers " .
>
>
>
> Please be so kind to forward it to the ICG  for its  consideration.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Silvia
>
>
>
>
>
> Silvia Vivanco
>
> Manager, At Large Regional Affairs
>
> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> [AFRALO-AfrICANN_Statement_Final_FR copy.pdf]
>
> [AFRALO-AfrICANN Statement_Final draft_En[1] copy.pdf]
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/f836ce1e/attachment.sig>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul 14 05:06:46 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:06:46 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of
	the Internet unique identifiers " for ICG
In-Reply-To: <C114D1E9-555E-4C85-819D-4627C15AEA57@frobbit.se>
References: <b13635efdbfa4f57832e431271b14d04@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<01d601d0bde4$49c33f30$dd49bd90$@icgsec.asia>
	<C114D1E9-555E-4C85-819D-4627C15AEA57@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <021301d0bdf2$e53bc820$afb35860$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Patrik and all,

We will communicate with Silvia et al. and encourage posting to the ICG
Forum.  Apologies for the lapse in process, we will remedy this post haste.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:02 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of
the Internet unique identifiers " for ICG


ICG do not have a mechanism for "taking things into consideration", so this
communication is wrong and should have bounced.

Either parties can send things to the public forum of ICG where it ends up
being public, and then ICG use our process for dealing with such input. Or
people that have issues with process etc can contact our Chair, Alissa,
which will then deal with the issue (keeping ICG informed etc).

We can not have "random organisations send mail to us".

So, this should have bounced and the sender should have been encouraged to
file a posting if they so wished.

Jennifer, can secretariat please take care of this in an appropriate way?

   Patrik

On 14 Jul 2015, at 5:22, Jennifer Chung wrote:

> Dear ICG members,
>
>
>
> Please see the AFRALO/AFRICANN statement as attached for your
consideration.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
> From: Silvia Vivanco [mailto:silvia.vivanco at icann.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:07 AM
> To: admin at icgsec.asia
> Cc: Aziz Hilali; Heidi Ullrich; Gisella Gruber
> Subject: Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet 
> unique identifiers " for ICG
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Dear  ICG Secretariat,
>
>
>
> On behalf of  AFRALO's Chair Aziz Hilali, please find attached the
AFRALO/AFRICANN Statement discussed and approved at the ICANN 53rd meeting
in Buenos Aires, entitled " Our views on the Proposed Future  Governance of
the  Internet  unique identifiers " .
>
>
>
> Please be so kind to forward it to the ICG  for its  consideration.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Silvia
>
>
>
>
>
> Silvia Vivanco
>
> Manager, At Large Regional Affairs
>
> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> [AFRALO-AfrICANN_Statement_Final_FR copy.pdf]
>
> [AFRALO-AfrICANN Statement_Final draft_En[1] copy.pdf] 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Tue Jul 14 05:27:56 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:27:56 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of
 the Internet unique identifiers " for ICG
In-Reply-To: <021301d0bdf2$e53bc820$afb35860$@icgsec.asia>
References: <b13635efdbfa4f57832e431271b14d04@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<01d601d0bde4$49c33f30$dd49bd90$@icgsec.asia>
	<C114D1E9-555E-4C85-819D-4627C15AEA57@frobbit.se>
	<021301d0bdf2$e53bc820$afb35860$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <C0C50065-B4EF-435C-89AF-B770B1391B8E@frobbit.se>

On 14 Jul 2015, at 7:06, Jennifer Chung wrote:

> Dear Patrik and all,
>
> We will communicate with Silvia et al. and encourage posting to the ICG Forum.

Thanks!!

> Apologies for the lapse in process, we will remedy this post haste.

No problem!!! :-)

   Patrik

> Best Regards,
>
> Jennifer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:02 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet unique identifiers " for ICG
>
>
> ICG do not have a mechanism for "taking things into consideration", so this communication is wrong and should have bounced.
>
> Either parties can send things to the public forum of ICG where it ends up being public, and then ICG use our process for dealing with such input. Or people that have issues with process etc can contact our Chair, Alissa, which will then deal with the issue (keeping ICG informed etc).
>
> We can not have "random organisations send mail to us".
>
> So, this should have bounced and the sender should have been encouraged to file a posting if they so wished.
>
> Jennifer, can secretariat please take care of this in an appropriate way?
>
> Patrik
>
> On 14 Jul 2015, at 5:22, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>
>> Dear ICG members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see the AFRALO/AFRICANN statement as attached for your
> consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Silvia Vivanco [mailto:silvia.vivanco at icann.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:07 AM
>> To: admin at icgsec.asia
>> Cc: Aziz Hilali; Heidi Ullrich; Gisella Gruber
>> Subject: Our views on the Proposed Future Governance of the Internet
>> unique identifiers " for ICG
>> Importance: High
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear  ICG Secretariat,
>>
>>
>>
>> On behalf of  AFRALO's Chair Aziz Hilali, please find attached the
> AFRALO/AFRICANN Statement discussed and approved at the ICANN 53rd meeting in Buenos Aires, entitled " Our views on the Proposed Future  Governance of the  Internet  unique identifiers " .
>>
>>
>>
>> Please be so kind to forward it to the ICG  for its  consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Silvia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Silvia Vivanco
>>
>> Manager, At Large Regional Affairs
>>
>> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>
>> <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [AFRALO-AfrICANN_Statement_Final_FR copy.pdf]
>>
>> [AFRALO-AfrICANN Statement_Final draft_En[1] copy.pdf]
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/6016cbf2/attachment.sig>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Tue Jul 14 06:01:04 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:01:04 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net>

Here’s my combined proposal assessment (apologies for Word 
attachment).

I’m not confident that this is complete, or 100% accurate in terms of 
the status of certain specific elements which can be hard to 
locate/identify in the proposals.  But I hope a useful contribution.

To be honest I’m also not clear on the final plan for this assessment. 
  I’ve assumed that it will become a chapter in the final ICG 
proposal, so I wrote the attached in a reasonably structured and formal 
style.

Best,

Paul.




On 14 Jul 2015, at 7:35, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together 
> in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements 
> where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any 
> conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable 
> manner?
>
> MM response:
>
> A1. The IANA trademark and domain are not currently handled in a fully 
> compatible manner in my opinion. Numbers and protocols have reached 
> agreement on a compatible solution, but names has not. If one 
> disregards the bracketed section of the CWG proposal that deals with 
> the topic, one could say that all 3 proposals are compatible because 
> there really is no proposal from CWG, and thus it does not get in the 
> way of, or propose anything incompatible with, the solution proposed 
> by the CRISP team and the IANAPLAN WG. However, I do not think it is 
> optimal to consider the absence of an agreed proposal from CWG to be 
> the same thing as the names community having reached consensus around 
> a compatible proposal. It would be better for the CWG to explicitly 
> indicate their acceptance of the CRISP team proposal, or, if that 
> proves to not be possible, to propose an alternative that can gain the 
> acceptance of the numbers and protocol communities.
>
> A2. This is not a compatibility problem, but some issues related to 
> the legal separation of ICANN's IANA department from ICANN and the 
> movement of its assets, personnel, etc. into PTI need to be noted. It 
> should be clear from the CWG proposal that ALL IANA-related activities 
> and assets, not just those related to names, will be transferred to 
> PTI, or at least that is my understanding of it. If there is any doubt 
> about this it needs to be cleared up. Further, both the numbers and 
> the protocol communities, while not expressing objections to PTI, have 
> indicated that they prefer to contract for their IANA functions with 
> ICANN rather than doing it directly with PTI, even as ICANN contracts 
> with PTI for the names-related IANA functions. To avoid any 
> incompatibilities related to this, it should be made clear that ICANN 
> will use, and is required to use, its affiliate PTI to perform the 
> contracted IANA functions for numbers and protocols.
>
> B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and 
> properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running 
> the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under 
> the single proposal?
>
> B1. All 3 proposals rely most directly for accountability on the right 
> of the operational community to discard ICANN and select a new entity 
> for the performance of the IANA functions. This means that if the 
> status of the IANA trademark and domain are not resolved properly, the 
> combined proposal could fail to deliver an appropriate and properly 
> supported independent accountability mechanism. Any solution that 
> involves retention of the IANA trademark and domain by the incumbent 
> IANA operator would make switching IANA operators much more difficult 
> and costly, with all that that entails for accountability. Thus, the 
> IANA trademark and domain are not just compatibility issues but 
> accountability issues as well.
>
> B2. I concur with the analysis of Russ Housley that "The 
> CWG-Stewardship proposal depends on a yet-to-be-written 
> CCWG-Accountability document." The proposal made by the CCWG on 
> enhanced accountability must be acceptable to the entire engaged 
> community, and fully meshed with the CWG-Stewardship proposal, before 
> it can be considered as delivering an acceptable level of "overall 
> accountability."
>
> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of 
> workability that were included in the component proposals conflict 
> with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in 
> combination?
>
> C1. I believe there are potential workability issues surrounding the 
> revision in the role of Verisign and its cooperative agreement. The 
> CWG-Stewardship proposal is vague about the type of relationship 
> between PTI and Verisign post-transition; and the NTIA is rather vague 
> about the future of the Verisign-NTIA Cooperative Agreement.
>
> C2. I note that Section IV, which includes a subsection IV.C on the 
> "Workability of any new technical or operational methods," is labelled 
> as "under development" in the CWG proposal.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Assessment-PW.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 128319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/b3ec1ca8/attachment.docx>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Tue Jul 14 06:13:53 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:13:53 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Resending: Structure of the final ICG proposal
References: <EF7FF116-2C2C-476A-A209-DE573DFAD665@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <9F66E91D-1388-4664-959D-DEC71102F6D6@apnic.net>

Hi all,

I can’t see that we’ve made much progress on the overall structure 
of the final ICG proposal document.

So I’m sharing again this proposal that I sent just before the ICANN 
meeting.  It’s a proposed “table of contents” with a description 
of what should appear in each major section of the document.

I’m not attached to this structure itself (nor to any of the sections) 
but I think we will benefit from a clear description of structure and 
the purpose of the each of the parts.

Paul.


>
> 1. Executive Summary
>
> This is a substantial summary of the proposal itself and the ICG 
> assessment.
> Description of ICG’s own processes should be brief.
> No background material is included here, except by reference.
>
> 2. Development Process
>
> This is a full description of the ICG’s own process to develop the 
> proposal.
> Community proposal processes not described here as they are covered in 
> the next section.
> Should include very limited pre-ICG background material, except by 
> reference.
>
> 3. Community Proposals Overview
>
> This section has 3 sub-sections, for Protocols, Numbers and Names.
> Each part gives a summary of the community proposal, with consistent 
> structure of subsections:
> - Development process
> - List and brief functional description of main components of proposal
> - Summary of ICG evaluation
>
> 4. Integrated Transition Proposal
>
> This is the full substance of the proposal as an integration of 
> community proposals.
> Individual detail sections will cover all of the proposal elements:
> - common elements including PTI, IANA Intellectual property, etc
> - major elements from individual proposals, with IGC’s own 
> commentary on each
>
> 5. Integrated proposal assessment
>
> This is the substance of the proposal assessment by the ICG, 
> including:
> - Interactions between community proposals
> - Assessment of NTIA Requirements
> - Accountability considerations?
> - Implementation considerations and timing
>
> 6. Conclusion and next steps
>
> This provides next steps with reference to NTIA assessment and 
> implementation steps.
> Process issues e.g. regarding management/oversight of implementation.
> Recommendations from the ICG, if any.
> Should not cover process for comment on this document, because that is 
> out of band.
>

Appendices:

- Names Proposal
- Numbers Proposal
- Protocols Proposal
- Background documents, announcements etc


________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Jul 14 06:49:24 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 06:49:24 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <DAC1BC2B-D3D9-40DB-B529-48D6F32204B2@frobbit.se>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
	<B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
	<ad9475182cfa42e9921325a810ed4179@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<DAC1BC2B-D3D9-40DB-B529-48D6F32204B2@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <49633f63d4284d749152b38fd972a14c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Patrik ..
Allow me to further clarify what I wanted to say inline below ..
Happy to be corrected ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:36 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Alissa Cooper; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

On 14 Jul 2015, at 4:56, Manal Ismail wrote:

> Don't we want to seek CWG input on this?
> How do they plan to approve the CCWG proposal?

Formally the CCWG proposal is approved when the chartering organizations of the CCWG so approve it. What rules and processes they use each one of them(*), is up to them. Just like the CWG proposal was approved.

[MI]: Agree .. 'Approve' may be a wrong word choice from my side .. I understand that approval will be done by the chartering organizations .. I wanted to say "CWG confirmation (not approval) that the CCWG proposal meets their requirements" .. 

It is up to us (ICG) to decide whether what we send in (which is a collection from the three OC) is something we feel can be sent in, and we already do sync with CCWG.

It is my view that it is up to ICG to, in sync with CCWG, ensure that our two proposals, regardless of how independent they are, do create together "the package" that Strickling has been asking for.

[MI]: Fair point .. but I thought we agreed in BA that once CCWG Workstream1 output is sent to SOs/ACs for approval, that ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements ..

Because of this, I think it is up to both us (ICG) and CCWG to ensure that the proposals do not conflict, and the way we do that is to if needed ask CWG for clarifications. It might of course also be that CWG contacts us because of things triggered by the CWG and CCWG coordinating [simply because there are references between the two documents].

[MI]: I thought that asking the CWG for a confirmation became an agreed step, not an 'if needed' step, but happy to be corrected ..

   Patrik

(*) SSAC is since one week back a chartering organization of the CCWG.

> Is it just an announcement or is there something that needs to be reflected in their final proposal, edits?/references? By ICG?/CWG?
>
> The names community proposal states:
> " Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision."
>
> Does this mean that if everything is implemented the final version stands as it is?
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:10 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>
> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>>
>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
>
> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
>
> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Patrik

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 14 07:46:57 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:46:57 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>

All,

a few comments from my side re both Paul's and Milton's analyses:

1. IANA.org trademark handling: agree that a CWG confirmation to the 
CRISP/IANAPLAN proposal should be requested

2. PTI: I understand Paul's concern re a potential delay in establishing the 
PTI and the question what should then happen with the numbers related SLA. 
But first it should be clear what "delay" means in this case as I don't see 
a concrete delay as long as the contract with NTIA still exists.
Secondly I'm not sure whether subcontracting of the SLAs should be just an 
option or mandatory. Both seem workable solutions to me; a decision should 
be taken upon economic reasons.

3. accountability: agreed that all 3 OC's should (formally?) confirm the 
CCWG proposal.

I'll try to participate in the call but maybe just in listening mode due to 
the early hour.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Paul Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:01 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment

Here’s my combined proposal assessment (apologies for Word
attachment).

I’m not confident that this is complete, or 100% accurate in terms of
the status of certain specific elements which can be hard to
locate/identify in the proposals.  But I hope a useful contribution.

To be honest I’m also not clear on the final plan for this assessment.
  I’ve assumed that it will become a chapter in the final ICG
proposal, so I wrote the attached in a reasonably structured and formal
style.

Best,

Paul.




On 14 Jul 2015, at 7:35, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together
> in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements
> where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any
> conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable
> manner?
>
> MM response:
>
> A1. The IANA trademark and domain are not currently handled in a fully
> compatible manner in my opinion. Numbers and protocols have reached
> agreement on a compatible solution, but names has not. If one
> disregards the bracketed section of the CWG proposal that deals with
> the topic, one could say that all 3 proposals are compatible because
> there really is no proposal from CWG, and thus it does not get in the
> way of, or propose anything incompatible with, the solution proposed
> by the CRISP team and the IANAPLAN WG. However, I do not think it is
> optimal to consider the absence of an agreed proposal from CWG to be
> the same thing as the names community having reached consensus around
> a compatible proposal. It would be better for the CWG to explicitly
> indicate their acceptance of the CRISP team proposal, or, if that
> proves to not be possible, to propose an alternative that can gain the
> acceptance of the numbers and protocol communities.
>
> A2. This is not a compatibility problem, but some issues related to
> the legal separation of ICANN's IANA department from ICANN and the
> movement of its assets, personnel, etc. into PTI need to be noted. It
> should be clear from the CWG proposal that ALL IANA-related activities
> and assets, not just those related to names, will be transferred to
> PTI, or at least that is my understanding of it. If there is any doubt
> about this it needs to be cleared up. Further, both the numbers and
> the protocol communities, while not expressing objections to PTI, have
> indicated that they prefer to contract for their IANA functions with
> ICANN rather than doing it directly with PTI, even as ICANN contracts
> with PTI for the names-related IANA functions. To avoid any
> incompatibilities related to this, it should be made clear that ICANN
> will use, and is required to use, its affiliate PTI to perform the
> contracted IANA functions for numbers and protocols.
>
> B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and
> properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running
> the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under
> the single proposal?
>
> B1. All 3 proposals rely most directly for accountability on the right
> of the operational community to discard ICANN and select a new entity
> for the performance of the IANA functions. This means that if the
> status of the IANA trademark and domain are not resolved properly, the
> combined proposal could fail to deliver an appropriate and properly
> supported independent accountability mechanism. Any solution that
> involves retention of the IANA trademark and domain by the incumbent
> IANA operator would make switching IANA operators much more difficult
> and costly, with all that that entails for accountability. Thus, the
> IANA trademark and domain are not just compatibility issues but
> accountability issues as well.
>
> B2. I concur with the analysis of Russ Housley that "The
> CWG-Stewardship proposal depends on a yet-to-be-written
> CCWG-Accountability document." The proposal made by the CCWG on
> enhanced accountability must be acceptable to the entire engaged
> community, and fully meshed with the CWG-Stewardship proposal, before
> it can be considered as delivering an acceptable level of "overall
> accountability."
>
> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of
> workability that were included in the component proposals conflict
> with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in
> combination?
>
> C1. I believe there are potential workability issues surrounding the
> revision in the role of Verisign and its cooperative agreement. The
> CWG-Stewardship proposal is vague about the type of relationship
> between PTI and Verisign post-transition; and the NTIA is rather vague
> about the future of the Verisign-NTIA Cooperative Agreement.
>
> C2. I note that Section IV, which includes a subsection IV.C on the
> "Workability of any new technical or operational methods," is labelled
> as "under development" in the CWG proposal.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 pwilson at apnic.net  Tue Jul 14 08:23:41 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:23:41 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net>
	<AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <80BB5230-9C6E-4AED-BB21-A8DF8C9E7379@apnic.net>

On 14 Jul 2015, at 17:46, WUKnoben wrote:
> All,
>
> a few comments from my side re both Paul's and Milton's analyses:

Thanks for the response.

>
> 1. IANA.org trademark handling: agree that a CWG confirmation to the 
> CRISP/IANAPLAN proposal should be requested
>
> 2. PTI: I understand Paul's concern re a potential delay in 
> establishing the PTI and the question what should then happen with the 
> numbers related SLA. But first it should be clear what "delay" means 
> in this case as I don't see a concrete delay as long as the contract 
> with NTIA still exists.

I felt that this was clear enough in my text, but I’m happy to discuss 
clarifications if it is agreed to include this issue in an 
“official” ICG assessment.

> Secondly I'm not sure whether subcontracting of the SLAs should be 
> just an option or mandatory. Both seem workable solutions to me; a 
> decision should be taken upon economic reasons.

I believe any subcontracting must be optional, for consistency with the 
CRISP proposal, and I expect with the IANAPLAN proposal as well.  Also I 
think it would not be appropriate for the ICG to impose such a mandatory 
requirement on a community proposal, where this was not an obvious (and 
preferably confirmed) interpretation by the ICG of some ambiguous 
element.

>
> 3. accountability: agreed that all 3 OC's should (formally?) confirm 
> the CCWG proposal.

I’m not sure about this, as it seems that this issue is out of the 
ICG’s scope.  I think all we can ask is whether the proposals 
themselves are complete in terms of the required or expected 
accountability mechanisms.

All the best

Paul




>
> I'll try to participate in the call but maybe just in listening mode 
> due to the early hour.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:01 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
>
> Here’s my combined proposal assessment (apologies for Word
> attachment).
>
> I’m not confident that this is complete, or 100% accurate in terms 
> of
> the status of certain specific elements which can be hard to
> locate/identify in the proposals.  But I hope a useful contribution.
>
> To be honest I’m also not clear on the final plan for this 
> assessment.
> I’ve assumed that it will become a chapter in the final ICG
> proposal, so I wrote the attached in a reasonably structured and 
> formal
> style.
>
> Best,
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
> On 14 Jul 2015, at 7:35, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together
>> in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements
>> where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any
>> conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable
>> manner?
>>
>> MM response:
>>
>> A1. The IANA trademark and domain are not currently handled in a 
>> fully
>> compatible manner in my opinion. Numbers and protocols have reached
>> agreement on a compatible solution, but names has not. If one
>> disregards the bracketed section of the CWG proposal that deals with
>> the topic, one could say that all 3 proposals are compatible because
>> there really is no proposal from CWG, and thus it does not get in the
>> way of, or propose anything incompatible with, the solution proposed
>> by the CRISP team and the IANAPLAN WG. However, I do not think it is
>> optimal to consider the absence of an agreed proposal from CWG to be
>> the same thing as the names community having reached consensus around
>> a compatible proposal. It would be better for the CWG to explicitly
>> indicate their acceptance of the CRISP team proposal, or, if that
>> proves to not be possible, to propose an alternative that can gain 
>> the
>> acceptance of the numbers and protocol communities.
>>
>> A2. This is not a compatibility problem, but some issues related to
>> the legal separation of ICANN's IANA department from ICANN and the
>> movement of its assets, personnel, etc. into PTI need to be noted. It
>> should be clear from the CWG proposal that ALL IANA-related 
>> activities
>> and assets, not just those related to names, will be transferred to
>> PTI, or at least that is my understanding of it. If there is any 
>> doubt
>> about this it needs to be cleared up. Further, both the numbers and
>> the protocol communities, while not expressing objections to PTI, 
>> have
>> indicated that they prefer to contract for their IANA functions with
>> ICANN rather than doing it directly with PTI, even as ICANN contracts
>> with PTI for the names-related IANA functions. To avoid any
>> incompatibilities related to this, it should be made clear that ICANN
>> will use, and is required to use, its affiliate PTI to perform the
>> contracted IANA functions for numbers and protocols.
>>
>> B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and
>> properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running
>> the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under
>> the single proposal?
>>
>> B1. All 3 proposals rely most directly for accountability on the 
>> right
>> of the operational community to discard ICANN and select a new entity
>> for the performance of the IANA functions. This means that if the
>> status of the IANA trademark and domain are not resolved properly, 
>> the
>> combined proposal could fail to deliver an appropriate and properly
>> supported independent accountability mechanism. Any solution that
>> involves retention of the IANA trademark and domain by the incumbent
>> IANA operator would make switching IANA operators much more difficult
>> and costly, with all that that entails for accountability. Thus, the
>> IANA trademark and domain are not just compatibility issues but
>> accountability issues as well.
>>
>> B2. I concur with the analysis of Russ Housley that "The
>> CWG-Stewardship proposal depends on a yet-to-be-written
>> CCWG-Accountability document." The proposal made by the CCWG on
>> enhanced accountability must be acceptable to the entire engaged
>> community, and fully meshed with the CWG-Stewardship proposal, before
>> it can be considered as delivering an acceptable level of "overall
>> accountability."
>>
>> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of
>> workability that were included in the component proposals conflict
>> with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in
>> combination?
>>
>> C1. I believe there are potential workability issues surrounding the
>> revision in the role of Verisign and its cooperative agreement. The
>> CWG-Stewardship proposal is vague about the type of relationship
>> between PTI and Verisign post-transition; and the NTIA is rather 
>> vague
>> about the future of the Verisign-NTIA Cooperative Agreement.
>>
>> C2. I note that Section IV, which includes a subsection IV.C on the
>> "Workability of any new technical or operational methods," is 
>> labelled
>> as "under development" in the CWG proposal.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Jul 14 09:14:09 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:14:09 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <2841bee4be4d469f9d5e194e00f6ba32@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<E0ADA38E-575B-476E-A398-81BDBFC8FD59@vigilsec.com>
	<2841bee4be4d469f9d5e194e00f6ba32@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <aa1f5d30599841128a2b3847551cd147@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Responses to assessment questions inline below ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?


*         IANA trademark and domain name: Both the RIRs and the IETF communities made their proposals compatible.  It was clarified that the relevant text in the Names community proposal is just a placeholder.  Hence there is no incompatibility per se but it is still an open issue, not addressed by the names proposal.  This needs to be resolved among the 3 operational communities prior to proposal finalization.  Reference the CWG co-chairs reply dated 2nd of July, in particular the paragraphs stating: "In effect, the Final Proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademark. Therefore it is our firm view that it is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. To reaffirm this, and to discuss a potential consolidated position, we have extended an offer to the leadership of the other two operational communities for a call on Tuesday, 7 July. We then intend to provide an update for discussion to the CWG-Stewardship at our next meeting on Thursday, 9 July. We are happy to provide you with a subsequent update on the outcomes of both discussions.", it's important to know the results of both such discussions to be able to conclude on the topic.


*         Post-Transition IANA (PTI): My understanding is that the 3 OCs will ultimately be served by PTI whether directly (the Names) or indirectly (Numbers & Protocol Parameters), right? If yes, then what if the Names IANA Function Review (IFR) decides separation is needed? Would this be an issue that needs to be tackled? Appreciate being guided by colleagues who were more involved in the drafting of the proposals.

B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?


*         Dependency on CCWG proposal: "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)".  Worth noting that it was agreed by the ICG at its meeting in Buenos Aires that once CCWG Workstream1 output is sent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements.  Hence final transition proposal is pending CWG confirmation that CCWG final proposal meets its requirements.

C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?


*         The proposal is workable conditioned by the above points.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/841b49f3/attachment.html>

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jul 14 13:48:39 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:48:39 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net>
	<AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <4ce95c15bf6a4513aefbe3c1a2b2fb32@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> 2. PTI: I understand Paul's concern re a potential delay in establishing the PTI
> and the question what should then happen with the numbers related SLA.
> But first it should be clear what "delay" means in this case as I don't see a
> concrete delay as long as the contract with NTIA still exists.

Yes, I found this a bit odd, too. I am afraid I have a more critical perspective on Paul's latest attempt to decouple the numbers and protocols proposals from names. 

Though I can't speak for the entire names community I think that to many of them it would be both inefficient - and unacceptable to the spirit of the overall stewardship transition and accountability reform process - for PTI to be confined to names only IANA functions. The point of the reform is to clearly, structurally and legally separate ICANN the names policy maker from the IANA functions. Any plan that leaves 2/3 of the IANA functions within ICANN does not meet that objective. The idea that a "delay" in creating PTI would somehow justify gutting that reform strikes me as a kind of flimsy rationale. We know numbers and protocols are eager to break free of the NTIA oversight, and I am totally sympathetic to those desires, but we've been told time and again that the proposal has to be a single unified one and NTIA won't accept it otherwise. The simple fact is that numbers and protocols will have to wait for PTI to be created before the transition is complete. There is no such thing as a "delay" here, if that means going beyond an arbitrary fixed date by which PTI must be created. There is only done or not done. Impatience from the numbers community can be a highly destructive factor if it creates pressures to back off the basic structural reforms, and frankly I do not see what the gain is, unless you believe that somehow the names transition will never be completed. 



From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 14 14:20:50 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 22:20:50 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <4ce95c15bf6a4513aefbe3c1a2b2fb32@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net><AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>
	<4ce95c15bf6a4513aefbe3c1a2b2fb32@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <25574B702BFD45608E356AE05918BF79@WUKPC>

Thanks Milton, these are my thoughts, too.

So we have to be clear about what it means "...that the proposal has to be a 
single unified one and NTIA won't accept it otherwise..."

Wouldn't this then mean in consequence that for the contractual relationship 
of the SLAs no real alternative is given rather than a subcontract with the 
PTI?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:48 PM
To: WUKnoben ; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment



> -----Original Message-----
> 2. PTI: I understand Paul's concern re a potential delay in establishing 
> the PTI
> and the question what should then happen with the numbers related SLA.
> But first it should be clear what "delay" means in this case as I don't 
> see a
> concrete delay as long as the contract with NTIA still exists.

Yes, I found this a bit odd, too. I am afraid I have a more critical 
perspective on Paul's latest attempt to decouple the numbers and protocols 
proposals from names.

Though I can't speak for the entire names community I think that to many of 
them it would be both inefficient - and unacceptable to the spirit of the 
overall stewardship transition and accountability reform process - for PTI 
to be confined to names only IANA functions. The point of the reform is to 
clearly, structurally and legally separate ICANN the names policy maker from 
the IANA functions. Any plan that leaves 2/3 of the IANA functions within 
ICANN does not meet that objective. The idea that a "delay" in creating PTI 
would somehow justify gutting that reform strikes me as a kind of flimsy 
rationale. We know numbers and protocols are eager to break free of the NTIA 
oversight, and I am totally sympathetic to those desires, but we've been 
told time and again that the proposal has to be a single unified one and 
NTIA won't accept it otherwise. The simple fact is that numbers and 
protocols will have to wait for PTI to be created before the transition is 
complete. There is no such thing as a "delay" here, if that means going 
beyond an arbitrary fixed date by which PTI must be created. There is only 
done or not done. Impatience from the numbers community can be a highly 
destructive factor if it creates pressures to back off the basic structural 
reforms, and frankly I do not see what the gain is, unless you believe that 
somehow the names transition will never be completed.


_______________________________________________
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 Jul 14 14:26:43 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:26:43 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
Message-ID: <85D2829A-E6BF-447F-8B0C-A1D1AC8729E4@cooperw.in>

The CWG had a call last week and one of the action items resulting from the call was as follows:

> Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other communities.
> 

The client committee consists of CWG participants and legal advisors from their independent law firm, Sidley. CWG co-chair Lise Fuhr has since taken the action: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000252.html>. As you can see, the CWG is asking Sidley for a quote of how many hours of work Sidley would require to evaluate three scenarios: "IANA's IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust).” My understanding is that once they receive the quote they will decide whether to ask Sidley to do this work and whether to use the output of that work to help form a CWG position as regards the IANA IPR.

Folks who have been participating in the CWG should correct the above if it’s wrong.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/ae140fa9/attachment.html>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Tue Jul 14 14:39:17 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:39:17 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <4ce95c15bf6a4513aefbe3c1a2b2fb32@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net>
	<AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>
	<4ce95c15bf6a4513aefbe3c1a2b2fb32@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <A082F3E8-CF58-437F-966A-80AF7EDCC061@apnic.net>

Milton, I guess you are referring to this paragraph of my document:

> Establishment of the PTI appears to be a prerequisite for the IANA 
> transition to occur, and therefore a delay in that process would delay 
> the completion of the entire transition plan.  In case of a delay, the 
> Names proposal would necessarily be delayed, due to its dependency on 
> the PTI; however implementation of the Numbers and Protocols proposals 
> could proceed, with ICANN continuing to provide IANA services.

My intention, which I guess should be clearer, is that if the transition 
of Numbers and Protocols functions were to precede the establishment of 
the PTI, then it is still expected that a transfer of those functions to 
the PTI would occur as soon as the PTI is able to take them on.  This is 
in the common interest of all communities, not just for names or 
“others”.

I am as committed as anyone to the simple singular transition of all 
functions at one time, but I must highlight the possibility of delays 
that could prevent the PTI from being established within the expected 
timeframe.  What is unproductive I think is to suggest ulterior 
motivations for my raising this concern, when I am being as transparent 
as I can be in this discussion.

Paul.





On 14 Jul 2015, at 23:48, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> 2. PTI: I understand Paul's concern re a potential delay in 
>> establishing the PTI
>> and the question what should then happen with the numbers related 
>> SLA.
>> But first it should be clear what "delay" means in this case as I 
>> don't see a
>> concrete delay as long as the contract with NTIA still exists.
>
> Yes, I found this a bit odd, too. I am afraid I have a more critical 
> perspective on Paul's latest attempt to decouple the numbers and 
> protocols proposals from names.
>
> Though I can't speak for the entire names community I think that to 
> many of them it would be both inefficient - and unacceptable to the 
> spirit of the overall stewardship transition and accountability reform 
> process - for PTI to be confined to names only IANA functions. The 
> point of the reform is to clearly, structurally and legally separate 
> ICANN the names policy maker from the IANA functions. Any plan that 
> leaves 2/3 of the IANA functions within ICANN does not meet that 
> objective. The idea that a "delay" in creating PTI would somehow 
> justify gutting that reform strikes me as a kind of flimsy rationale. 
> We know numbers and protocols are eager to break free of the NTIA 
> oversight, and I am totally sympathetic to those desires, but we've 
> been told time and again that the proposal has to be a single unified 
> one and NTIA won't accept it otherwise. The simple fact is that 
> numbers and protocols will have to wait for PTI to be created before 
> the transition is complete. There is no such thing as a "delay" here, 
> if that means going beyond an arbitrary fixed date by which PTI must 
> be created. There is only done or not done. Impatience from the 
> numbers community can be a highly destructive factor if it creates 
> pressures to back off the basic structural reforms, and frankly I do 
> not see what the gain is, unless you believe that somehow the names 
> transition will never be completed.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul 14 14:40:02 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:40:02 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Resending: Structure of the final ICG proposal
In-Reply-To: <9F66E91D-1388-4664-959D-DEC71102F6D6@apnic.net>
References: <EF7FF116-2C2C-476A-A209-DE573DFAD665@apnic.net>
	<9F66E91D-1388-4664-959D-DEC71102F6D6@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <3BC64179-27A4-44A9-B3E9-3B0F3B5C8E04@cooperw.in>

Hi Paul,

Personally I feel quite strongly that we cannot modify the structure of the OC proposals as we received them. Otherwise, I think we would end up going back and forth with the OCs to check if the way we had chopped up their text and re-organized it still reflected their community consensus. Since all three of the proposals have the same structure (according to the RFP), I think this re-organization would be unnecessary. If there are common elements across the proposals that we want to draw people’s attention to, I think we can do that in the ICG’s own sections (as is already the case in the current version of the combined proposal).

Otherwise, the structure you propose below is very similar to the one that already exists in the combined proposal document (attached), except that the sections concerning the assessment and next steps are at the beginning (as part of the ICG Report) rather than at the end. I don’t have a strong feeling about where those sections go, but I will note that the proposals themselves comprise nearly 200 pages, so items that we really want to draw the public’s attention to (like the assessment) might be better served at the front of the document than at the back.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 193670 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/69edfd32/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

On Jul 13, 2015, at 11:13 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I can’t see that we’ve made much progress on the overall structure of the final ICG proposal document.
> 
> So I’m sharing again this proposal that I sent just before the ICANN meeting.  It’s a proposed “table of contents” with a description of what should appear in each major section of the document.
> 
> I’m not attached to this structure itself (nor to any of the sections) but I think we will benefit from a clear description of structure and the purpose of the each of the parts.
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 1. Executive Summary
>> 
>> This is a substantial summary of the proposal itself and the ICG assessment.
>> Description of ICG’s own processes should be brief.
>> No background material is included here, except by reference.
>> 
>> 2. Development Process
>> 
>> This is a full description of the ICG’s own process to develop the proposal.
>> Community proposal processes not described here as they are covered in the next section.
>> Should include very limited pre-ICG background material, except by reference.
>> 
>> 3. Community Proposals Overview
>> 
>> This section has 3 sub-sections, for Protocols, Numbers and Names.
>> Each part gives a summary of the community proposal, with consistent structure of subsections:
>> - Development process
>> - List and brief functional description of main components of proposal
>> - Summary of ICG evaluation
>> 
>> 4. Integrated Transition Proposal
>> 
>> This is the full substance of the proposal as an integration of community proposals.
>> Individual detail sections will cover all of the proposal elements:
>> - common elements including PTI, IANA Intellectual property, etc
>> - major elements from individual proposals, with IGC’s own commentary on each
>> 
>> 5. Integrated proposal assessment
>> 
>> This is the substance of the proposal assessment by the ICG, including:
>> - Interactions between community proposals
>> - Assessment of NTIA Requirements
>> - Accountability considerations?
>> - Implementation considerations and timing
>> 
>> 6. Conclusion and next steps
>> 
>> This provides next steps with reference to NTIA assessment and implementation steps.
>> Process issues e.g. regarding management/oversight of implementation.
>> Recommendations from the ICG, if any.
>> Should not cover process for comment on this document, because that is out of band.
>> 
> 
> Appendices:
> 
> - Names Proposal
> - Numbers Proposal
> - Protocols Proposal
> - Background documents, announcements etc
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jul 14 14:42:44 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:42:44 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <25574B702BFD45608E356AE05918BF79@WUKPC>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net><AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>
	<4ce95c15bf6a4513aefbe3c1a2b2fb32@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<25574B702BFD45608E356AE05918BF79@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <f8b6ab8ae4004f408f8a25e7dd2d384c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> Wouldn't this then mean in consequence that for the contractual
> relationship of the SLAs no real alternative is given rather than a subcontract
> with the PTI?

Well, for the short term all 3 OCs have agreed to use the status quo IANA for their part of the functions. It's just that the status quo IANA is becoming PTI. So if you contract with ICANN, yes, you are required to contract with either PTI or to contract with ICANN which will subcontract or assign the contract to PTI. 

But in the future, all OCs do have, and should have, "a real alternative" in the sense that they can switch providers according to the procedures set out in their proposals. So when you say there is "no real alternative" I assume you just mean in the initial setup period of the transition. 


From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 14 14:52:11 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 22:52:11 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <f8b6ab8ae4004f408f8a25e7dd2d384c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net><AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC><4ce95c15bf6a4513aefbe3c1a2b2fb32@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><25574B702BFD45608E356AE05918BF79@WUKPC>
	<f8b6ab8ae4004f408f8a25e7dd2d384c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <EF4FB805786C4C7C9ECC057684A9F6D3@WUKPC>

That's correct!

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:42 PM
To: WUKnoben ; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment



> -----Original Message-----
> Wouldn't this then mean in consequence that for the contractual
> relationship of the SLAs no real alternative is given rather than a 
> subcontract
> with the PTI?

Well, for the short term all 3 OCs have agreed to use the status quo IANA 
for their part of the functions. It's just that the status quo IANA is 
becoming PTI. So if you contract with ICANN, yes, you are required to 
contract with either PTI or to contract with ICANN which will subcontract or 
assign the contract to PTI.

But in the future, all OCs do have, and should have, "a real alternative" in 
the sense that they can switch providers according to the procedures set out 
in their proposals. So when you say there is "no real alternative" I assume 
you just mean in the initial setup period of the transition.

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 



From xl at cnnic.cn  Tue Jul 14 14:56:16 2015
From: xl at cnnic.cn (Xiaodong Lee)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 22:56:16 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined Proposal Assessment by Xiaodong Lee
Message-ID: <D1CB4410.47911%xl@cnnic.cn>

Dear Colleagues,
Please check my assessment.
Proposal title: 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
Reviewer Name: Xiaodong Lee
Date review was completed: July 14, 2015 at Beijing Time

A.     Compatibility and interoperability

1.     Do the proposals work together in a single proposal?
Yes, all proposals follow the RFP structure with readable components and
sections; together they offer a very clear picture of the transition of the
three major IANA functions.
2.     Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatibility
appears to be required?
No real incompatibility is foreseen. Only as three communities reach
different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Function Operator
(IFO), I believe efforts to facilitate further communication and
coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities at present in
preparation for implementation.
 3.     Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions
resolved in a workable manner?
No real conflicting overlaps are identified. The arrangements mentioned
above require further communication and coordination.
B.    Accountability
 1.     Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported
independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?
 Not completely.
 Numbering and protocol parameter proposals have included appropriate
accountability mechanisms with the vision of NTIA’s absence and are properly
supported.
The proposal of the naming community is not yet completed with a dependence
on the mechanisms for the accountability of ICANN that are being developed
in the CCWG-Accountability.  I can’t say it’s properly supported until this
work is stable.
2.     Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single
proposal?
The picture I get so far is that numbering and protocol parameter will rely
on the independent contractual arrangements and review mechanism to keep the
service accountable while the naming service will be under the oversight of
ICANN’s accountability mechanism.
Since responsibilities are carefully delineated in three proposals and there
is no shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple
organizations, there will be no gap exists in overall accountability
provided that every service is kept accountable to its customers. Even so,
coordination and communication are required for the IANA functions as a
whole to satisfy the needs of the IANA users.
C.    Workability
Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included
in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible
concerns when considered in combination?
As was mentioned above, it is observed that both Internet Number and
Protocol Parameter communities’ proposals call for ICANN to continue as the
IFO by means of a service level agreement or MOU, and thus rely upon the
contractual measures with ICANN for oversight of the provision of services.
On the other hand, however, naming community chooses to rely upon the
proposed PTI separation from ICANN for provision of IANA naming services and
to enhance ICANN’s accountability mechanisms for oversight of PTI.
The question here is if the formation of PTI would result in non-naming IANA
functions also being moved into PTI? If the answer is no, there will be a
need to separate the existing IANA department, operations and assets into
parts. In this case, concern is likely to be raised:
1. Even if responsibilities are carefully delineated in three proposals,
IANA function is an organic whole and changes to one function may have
impact on the operation of the other functions. Therefore, the separation of
the operational assets raises a problem about how do three functions
interoperate and interact with each other to keep the stability of the IANA
function.
2.  As is known, IANA department within ICANN is relatively small, the
separation raise another concern regarding complementarities and economies
in the provision of these services across names, numbers and protocols that
deserve our attention and discussion as an implementation issue.
3. If the case is to separate only the names-related functions to PTI,
ICANN’s role as IFO for numbering and Protocol parameter continues while
serving as the oversight body for another IFO (PTI), the feasibility and
rational of that need to be discussed and made clear to the community.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/d751f053/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Tue Jul 14 16:08:28 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:08:28 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <f8b6ab8ae4004f408f8a25e7dd2d384c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4432b6cc15764db69df72d8718dfabb2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><3039B8FD-FD2C-408B-B207-BD023CE74D2E@apnic.net><AF144E0889ED4E4AAD9A4292A8E47E11@WUKPC>	<4ce95c15bf6a4513aefbe3c1a2b2fb32@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<25574B702BFD45608E356AE05918BF79@WUKPC>
	<f8b6ab8ae4004f408f8a25e7dd2d384c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <55A533FC.5030502@oracle.com>

Colleagues:

Sorry to be late for the party...  I attach my version of the combined 
proposal assessment and pasted it below.

I'll be offline for next hour and a half and be back online later...

Joe

A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in 
a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where 
compatibility appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting 
overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?

The Communities by and large operate in a coordinated, yet mostly 
independent manner which is reflected in the fact that there are few 
dependencies or inconsistencies across the proposals.One issue which has 
come to light involves the IANA trademark, its ownership and use.IETF 
and RIRs seem to have a path forward on resolution though some details 
on timing may still need to be worked out. While use of the mark seems 
easy to resolve, its ownership may have further external 
dependencies.The Names proposal, as drafted, creates limited potential 
for incompatibility based on possible future actions; it specifically 
outlines:

The IETF, through its responsibilities for developing the underlying DNS 
protocol and its extensions, could designate parts of the domain name 
space for particular protocol-related purposes that may overlap with 
usages assigned through ICANN policies. It may also designate portions 
of the namespace as invalid, illegal, or reserved based on the evolution 
of the underlying DNS protocol and its extensions. It may also expand 
the scope of namespace to be managed through such changes.

However, while addressing all required elements, the names proposal is 
not a final proposal as it has significant dependencies on the external 
work on ICANN Accountability Mechanisms; most importantly, the creation 
and operation of the PTI. Without knowing the final outcome and detail 
of that proposal and the finalization of the names proposal it is 
impossible to answer this question with finality at present.If the 
proposal remains unchanged after finalization there should be 
compatibility assuming the trademark issue, highlighted above, is 
appropriately resolved.

B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and 
properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the 
IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the 
single proposal?

RIRs and IETF have long operated under mostly existing accountability 
mechanisms which are well documented and operationally effective.The 
proposals build on those accountability functions.

The Names proposal provides very detailed elements of accountability 
that are only proposed, as opposed to final, because of their dependency 
on the CCWG accountability work, which is still in process.While the 
elements described seem to provide appropriate accountability 
safeguards, the external dependencies make it impossible to conclude on 
this issue.

C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of 
workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with 
each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?

The proposals as combined create an unwieldy document that is not easily 
accessible for the non-initiate.That being said, any attempt to edit the 
community consensus proposals into a combined proposal would require us 
to revert to the operational communities and cause significant and 
unacceptable delay. We may wish to address this, and why we have not 
developed a more streamlined version, in our companion materials.

The RIRs have indicated in their proposal the ability to change 
operators as part of overall accountability.The issue was raised as a 
concern in our discussion of the proposal (also in direct e-mail 
exchanges), that multiple operators (as the contract seemed to imply the 
potential for multiple operators) might raise a greater potential for 
friction or fragmentation that was not fully addressed. Changing the 
operator, while a step that should not be taken lightly, would not 
necessarily impact the functionality or stability of operations where 
only one operator was being considered.Multiple operators may likewise 
be workable, but there was little demonstration that the scenarios had 
been appropriately considered as to issues it might raise and possible 
needed safeguards whether contractual or operational.I thought this had 
been addressed, but some recent exchanges seemed to have indicated this 
was still a possibility? I raise this as an issue for consideration. If 
collectively we feel that this eventuality would not create these 
issues, I will defer to the greater technical expertise of the group.

The Names proposal may well raise the most issues of workability as it 
depends on entities and operational functions not yet in existence.The 
proposal does provide some aspects of scenario analysis related to 
workability, but again this is based on the proposal as it exists, which 
is not assured.



On 7/14/2015 10:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Wouldn't this then mean in consequence that for the contractual
>> relationship of the SLAs no real alternative is given rather than a subcontract
>> with the PTI?
> Well, for the short term all 3 OCs have agreed to use the status quo IANA for their part of the functions. It's just that the status quo IANA is becoming PTI. So if you contract with ICANN, yes, you are required to contract with either PTI or to contract with ICANN which will subcontract or assign the contract to PTI.
>
> But in the future, all OCs do have, and should have, "a real alternative" in the sense that they can switch providers according to the procedures set out in their proposals. So when you say there is "no real alternative" I assume you just mean in the initial setup period of the transition.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/20ab72f1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: JHA proposal review.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31744 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/20ab72f1/attachment.doc>

From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Tue Jul 14 16:34:32 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:34:32 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <F16D8093-A6C3-4BA3-A68A-8C5402A1793E@cooperw.in>
References: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<170226252.733943.1436710051553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<F16D8093-A6C3-4BA3-A68A-8C5402A1793E@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <0AC9C8BE-4FE2-4DFE-A320-E8775F075AA0@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Alissa, Mary,

I support Mary's point and see Alissa's reasoning as well :-).   I also note, we should be careful about setting a precedent.

Could we "lean towards" Mary's suggestion, by making Mary's point in the first paragraph that it is the OC's responsibilities to respond as they feel appropriate and we hope they will.  And, then we ask the generic question(s).  In closing, we could say 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 OC/CWG.   This leaves the responsibility with the OC, and hopefully avoids Alissa's concern.

Lynn



On Jul 13, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Mary,
> 
> Fair point. I was trying to be mindful of all of the information we have already received from the CWG. To me if we just forward the question and ask the CWG to respond, we are shifting the burden back to them to tell us to go read their charter again, go review the public comment analysis tool again, etc. I think we should at least acknowledge that we are aware of the charter text and so forth that speak to the issues raised by Richard’s comments. But it’s true that we could do that and still have our query to the CWG be generic.
> 
> Do others have strong feelings about this?
> 
> Alissa
> 
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> I personally prefer the original formation of the questions from Patrik. If the ICG already has a position or answers to Richards claims or points as being expressed by Alissa, there is no need for the letter.
>> 
>> I would have preferred that ICG just raise  these issues with CWG and allow the Chairs to provide responses as they deem appropriate, in line with the previous method the ICG handled the same Commenter's claim on the other two OCs' proposals.
>> 
>> Should the ICG be seen as proffering responses to its own questions  to or clarifications from the OCs? 
>> 
>> Just a personal view.
>> 
>> Mary Uduma
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:31 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Fine with me too, including Joe’s suggestion ..
>> Just one remark, can we replace ‘claim’ with some other word? Maybe ‘point’?   
>>  
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>>  
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
>>  
>> Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
>> On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Draft letter text is below for your perusal.
>>  
>> —
>>  
>> Dear CWG,
>>  
>> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard’s claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information. 
>>  
>> Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard’s comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim. 
>> 
>> 
>> A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>  
>> 
>> NiRA Email Disclaimer
>> This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or phone number or telephone +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul 14 16:39:30 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:39:30 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum
Message-ID: <008501d0be53$a9fbf850$fdf3e8f0$@icgsec.asia>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9b90edd6/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul 14 17:49:56 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:49:56 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <49633f63d4284d749152b38fd972a14c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
	<B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
	<ad9475182cfa42e9921325a810ed4179@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<DAC1BC2B-D3D9-40DB-B529-48D6F32204B2@frobbit.se>
	<49633f63d4284d749152b38fd972a14c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <4A8F1DEB-BEBB-4AC4-A6A1-6454662F11D3@cooperw.in>

Manal, 

Putting aside the question of approval/confirmation (about which we already have a plan in place), I think you raise a good question about actually editing the CWG proposal text. For example, once the CCWG work stream 1 is done, paragraph 106 of the CWG proposal will be out-of-date. I could imagine that the CWG may want to update that text (and perhaps similar text elsewhere in the document) to reflect the fact that the CCWG produced what they needed (past tense) rather than the expectation that the CCWG would produce what they needed (future tense). But this is not something we’ve discussed with the CWG so we should probably confirm with them when the time comes.

Alissa

On Jul 13, 2015, at 11:49 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Patrik ..
> Allow me to further clarify what I wanted to say inline below ..
> Happy to be corrected ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:36 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Alissa Cooper; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> On 14 Jul 2015, at 4:56, Manal Ismail wrote:
> 
>> Don't we want to seek CWG input on this?
>> How do they plan to approve the CCWG proposal?
> 
> Formally the CCWG proposal is approved when the chartering organizations of the CCWG so approve it. What rules and processes they use each one of them(*), is up to them. Just like the CWG proposal was approved.
> 
> [MI]: Agree .. 'Approve' may be a wrong word choice from my side .. I understand that approval will be done by the chartering organizations .. I wanted to say "CWG confirmation (not approval) that the CCWG proposal meets their requirements" .. 
> 
> It is up to us (ICG) to decide whether what we send in (which is a collection from the three OC) is something we feel can be sent in, and we already do sync with CCWG.
> 
> It is my view that it is up to ICG to, in sync with CCWG, ensure that our two proposals, regardless of how independent they are, do create together "the package" that Strickling has been asking for.
> 
> [MI]: Fair point .. but I thought we agreed in BA that once CCWG Workstream1 output is sent to SOs/ACs for approval, that ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements ..
> 
> Because of this, I think it is up to both us (ICG) and CCWG to ensure that the proposals do not conflict, and the way we do that is to if needed ask CWG for clarifications. It might of course also be that CWG contacts us because of things triggered by the CWG and CCWG coordinating [simply because there are references between the two documents].
> 
> [MI]: I thought that asking the CWG for a confirmation became an agreed step, not an 'if needed' step, but happy to be corrected ..
> 
>   Patrik
> 
> (*) SSAC is since one week back a chartering organization of the CCWG.
> 
>> Is it just an announcement or is there something that needs to be reflected in their final proposal, edits?/references? By ICG?/CWG?
>> 
>> The names community proposal states:
>> " Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision."
>> 
>> Does this mean that if everything is implemented the final version stands as it is?
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:10 AM
>> To: Alissa Cooper
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>> 
>> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>>> 
>>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
>> 
>> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
>> 
>> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
>> 
>> Nothing more, nothing less.
>> 
>> Patrik



From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Tue Jul 14 18:54:24 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:54:24 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
In-Reply-To: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>
References: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <2F63FB13-1803-4AB6-81E0-79C6FB0F58D4@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Alissa, all,

Just to confirm that I am happy to shepherd the "incorporation process".  Apologies for the delay in responding, I am just back from a few days off to attend a family wedding.

Best regards,

Lynn

On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I’ve updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from the ICG report in the combined proposal.
> 
> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this by July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
> 
> I’m hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of incorporating feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly tied up with IETF matters next week.
> 
> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final section, that would be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0
> 
> <public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 14 19:01:40 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:01:40 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum
In-Reply-To: <008501d0be53$a9fbf850$fdf3e8f0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <008501d0be53$a9fbf850$fdf3e8f0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <55A55C94.6080309@oracle.com>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/f8fa20d0/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 14 19:44:35 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 03:44:35 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,
	19:00-21:00 UTC
Message-ID: <8A49CE7D079C4807A50897A868100BB5@WUKPC>

Colleagues,

I’m somewhat disappointed not being able to join the adobe room. The given link points me everytime to the romm of call #19 which was last week. I don’t know how to fix it. Somewhat must be wrong early morning from here.
So – after more than 30 mins I give up and wish you a fruitful meeting.
I’ll follow-up with the audio and transscript.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich




From: Jennifer Chung 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:14 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,19:00-21:00 UTC

Dear ICG Members,

 

This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #20 is scheduled for:

 

**Wednesday, 15 July 2015**

at 19:00-21:00 UTC

See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1GqeGdv 

Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/ 

 

You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.  Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia.

 

Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room – https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room.

 

Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room:



If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know.

 

Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note that Livestreaming translations in AR, FR and ZH will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.

 

Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream.

 

Agenda TBD

 

As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out.

 

Thank you!

 

Best regards

ICG Secretariat Team

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/4c2ba22d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/4c2ba22d/attachment.png>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Tue Jul 14 19:47:47 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:47:47 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,
	19:00-21:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <8A49CE7D079C4807A50897A868100BB5@WUKPC>
References: <8A49CE7D079C4807A50897A868100BB5@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <8684AC13-D9EA-421E-AC02-1FC24770F8C1@LStAmour.org>

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

the call is approx. 23 hours from now. :-)

Best,
Lynn

On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:44 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

> Colleagues,
>  
> I’m somewhat disappointed not being able to join the adobe room. The given link points me everytime to the romm of call #19 which was last week. I don’t know how to fix it. Somewhat must be wrong early morning from here.
> So – after more than 30 mins I give up and wish you a fruitful meeting.
> I’ll follow-up with the audio and transscript.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
>  
> From: Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:14 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,19:00-21:00 UTC
>  
> Dear ICG Members,
> 
>  
> 
> This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #20 is scheduled for:
> 
>  
> 
> **Wednesday, 15 July 2015**
> 
> at 19:00-21:00 UTC
> 
> See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1GqeGdv
> 
> Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/
> 
>  
> 
> You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.  Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know atadmin at icgsec.asia.
> 
>  
> 
> Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room – https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room.
> 
>  
> 
> Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room:
> 
> <image001.png>
> 
> If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know.
> 
>  
> 
> Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note that Livestreaming translations in AR, FR and ZH will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.
> 
>  
> 
> Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream.
> 
>  
> 
> Agenda TBD
> 
>  
> 
> As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> ICG Secretariat Team
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 14 19:51:24 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 03:51:24 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,
	19:00-21:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <8684AC13-D9EA-421E-AC02-1FC24770F8C1@LStAmour.org>
References: <8A49CE7D079C4807A50897A868100BB5@WUKPC>
	<8684AC13-D9EA-421E-AC02-1FC24770F8C1@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <EB3719F5DFB349D59EB0B6553125AB5D@WUKPC>

Oh my god, where I am?

I think best place is in bed...Thanks Lynn :-)


Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:47 AM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015, 
19:00-21:00 UTC

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

the call is approx. 23 hours from now. :-)

Best,
Lynn

On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:44 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> 
wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> I’m somewhat disappointed not being able to join the adobe room. The given 
> link points me everytime to the romm of call #19 which was last week. I 
> don’t know how to fix it. Somewhat must be wrong early morning from here.
> So – after more than 30 mins I give up and wish you a fruitful meeting.
> I’ll follow-up with the audio and transscript.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> From: Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:14 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 
> 2015,19:00-21:00 UTC
>
> Dear ICG Members,
>
>
>
> This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #20 is scheduled for:
>
>
>
> **Wednesday, 15 July 2015**
>
> at 19:00-21:00 UTC
>
> See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1GqeGdv
>
> Announcement: 
> https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/
>
>
>
> You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the 
> call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email 
> (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. 
> Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the 
> calendar subscription function here: 
> https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat 
> know atadmin at icgsec.asia.
>
>
>
> Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room – 
> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to 
> mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being 
> broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join 
> the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting 
> room.
>
>
>
> Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. 
> To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect 
> room:
>
> <image001.png>
>
> If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, 
> please let the Secretariat team know.
>
>
>
> Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, 
> RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please 
> note that Livestreaming translations in AR, FR and ZH will be available 
> for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual 
> Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.
>
>
>
> Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the 
> Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the 
> global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English 
> stream.
>
>
>
> Agenda TBD
>
>
>
> As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any 
> questions, concerns or need a dial-out.
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> ICG Secretariat Team
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 housley at vigilsec.com  Tue Jul 14 20:23:27 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:23:27 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
Message-ID: <C720220E-68B0-4D4F-B9CB-241B85B072CC@vigilsec.com>

Here are my thoughts ...

> A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?

The combined proposals (assuming that a set of mechanisms for ICANN accountability reaches consensus and fills the requirements outlined in the CWG-Stewardship proposal) will create a workable system.  This creates an open issue regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain name for the implementation phase.  The CRISP proposal asks for these to be transitioned outside of the operational communities, and then that entity will provide the appropriate licenses.  The CRISP proposal is the only one of the three proposals that specifies this handling, so as long as the other two communities can accommodate the CRISP way forward as part of their implementation, then the proposals are compatible. The IETF has already indicated explicitly indicated that this way forward is acceptable. The CWG-Stewardship chairs have told us to ignore the text in brackets, but that text is written with an assumption that ICANN will hold the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain name.  The ICG requests that the operational communities continue to coordinate on this topic during the implementation phase to ensure that the CRISP requirements are maintained and fulfilled during implementation.

> B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?

The CWG-Stewardship proposal depends on a yet-to-be-written CCWG-Accountability document.  That document will provide a set of mechanisms for ICANN accountability.  If it reaches consensus and fills the requirements outlined in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, then the accountability proposal will be complete.

> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?

The resulting proposal is not streamlined, but it is workable.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/2a417f22/attachment.html>

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Jul 14 21:38:50 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:38:50 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,
	19:00-21:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <EB3719F5DFB349D59EB0B6553125AB5D@WUKPC>
References: <8A49CE7D079C4807A50897A868100BB5@WUKPC>
	<8684AC13-D9EA-421E-AC02-1FC24770F8C1@LStAmour.org>
	<EB3719F5DFB349D59EB0B6553125AB5D@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <3c28dc1a0c1e4bcc92b95b67bc9fac1b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

The good news is, you didn't miss the meeting!
;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> WUKnoben
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 3:51 PM
> To: Lynn St.Amour
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,
> 19:00-21:00 UTC
> 
> Oh my god, where I am?
> 
> I think best place is in bed...Thanks Lynn :-)
> 
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:47 AM
> To: WUKnoben
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July 2015,
> 19:00-21:00 UTC
> 
> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
> 
> the call is approx. 23 hours from now. :-)
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:44 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> wrote:
> 
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > I'm somewhat disappointed not being able to join the adobe room. The
> > given link points me everytime to the romm of call #19 which was last
> > week. I don't know how to fix it. Somewhat must be wrong early morning
> from here.
> > So - after more than 30 mins I give up and wish you a fruitful meeting.
> > I'll follow-up with the audio and transscript.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Wolf-Ulrich
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Jennifer Chung
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:14 AM
> > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #20 - Wednesday, 15 July
> > 2015,19:00-21:00 UTC
> >
> > Dear ICG Members,
> >
> >
> >
> > This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #20 is scheduled for:
> >
> >
> >
> > **Wednesday, 15 July 2015**
> >
> > at 19:00-21:00 UTC
> >
> > See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1GqeGdv
> >
> > Announcement:
> > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/
> >
> >
> >
> > You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the
> > call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an
> > email
> > (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.
> > Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the
> > calendar subscription function here:
> > https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the
> > Secretariat know atadmin at icgsec.asia.
> >
> >
> >
> > Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room -
> > https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to
> > mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being
> > broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to
> > join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual
> > meeting room.
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the
> queue.
> > To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe
> > Connect
> > room:
> >
> > <image001.png>
> >
> > If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today,
> > please let the Secretariat team know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES,
> > FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.
> > Please note that Livestreaming translations in AR, FR and ZH will be
> > available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please
> > join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through
> > the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow
> > for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow
> > the English stream.
> >
> >
> >
> > Agenda TBD
> >
> >
> >
> > As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any
> > questions, concerns or need a dial-out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > ICG Secretariat Team
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 mundy at tislabs.com  Tue Jul 14 22:28:42 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:28:42 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposed Words for Root Zone Management paragraph of
	Combined proposal assessment
Message-ID: <AEC72310-B1EC-4452-B1A2-31772873A96D@tislabs.com>

Folks,

Sorry to be so late getting this se of draft words together - it took several rewrites to reach this point.  The words are intended to go in the "<insert text here from Russ Mundy about Root Zone Maintainer>” section of the combined proposal assessment on page 12.

Russ M

————————————


The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root Zone Management process currently has three functional roles, i.e., the IANA Functions Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer, and the Administrator.  These roles are performed by ICANN, Verisign and NTIA respectively.  The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 150) states "Post-transition, no authorization for Root Zone change requests will be needed.".  This paragraph also notes that there is a Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) that will need modification and that a seperate transition will be needed to disengage the NTIA from the Root Zone Maintainer and provides examples of how this might be implemented.  Since there is currently no agreement between the RZM and the IFO organizations for the Root Zone Management process and NTIA plans to disengage with both the IFO and RZM activities, the ICG notes that some form of agreeement between these organizations is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process.




From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Tue Jul 14 23:08:03 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:08:03 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
Message-ID: <16FE1099-4E93-4CE0-8849-D9AEB7868526@LStAmour.org>

…and here are my thoughts.



A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?

I believe the proposals work together in a single proposal, and the arrangements are compatible.  This is significantly aided by the fact that the policy and oversight for all three areas: Numbers, Protocol Parameters, and Names are developed/managed through three distinct Operating Communities (and not one "ICANN community"), hence little real overlap.

Further, there seems to be wide acceptance that the current IANA department in ICANN will move to the PTI, and all three operating communities will be served through the PTI, whether directly contracted or sub-contracted as a result of existing contractual relationships with ICANN.  Hence, do not foresee any incompatibilities inherent in the implementation aspects of the IANA Functions.

There remains though one open area to be resolved:  IPR re the IANA trademark and name.  The RIR and IETF communities are aligned on a desired outcome, while the Names community continues to evaluate alternatives.  It is too early to tell how this will be resolved and await further deliberations.



B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?

I believe the proposals taken together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function.  In particular, the RIRs and IETF have operated "independently" for many years.  Their processes are developed in consensus based, open environments, and have shown their resilience and effectiveness, evolving as required. Their proposals build on long-standing accountability mechanisms.  

In the same vein, the accountability mechanisms for the Names community have also been in development/practice for quite a long time (some pre-dating ICANN).  They have seen quite significant alterations in the past and will continue to evolve and mature.  The steps envisioned support this, even while we recognize that this "dependency loop" is not yet closed as we await the work of the CCWG - Accountability, and the confirmation of the CWG that their needs have been met.  If these needs are "not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal", the CWG has indicated they will need to revise their proposal.

There are a number of changes required to replace the oversight and accountability performed by the NTIA through the current NTIA-IANA Functions Contract and their role as Root Zone Management Process Administrator for the naming functions.   I believe these have been addressed in both the CWG proposal and the SSAC review of the CWG proposal and in particular appreciate the thorough review, guidance, and recommendations from the SSAC (and await further clarification on text from Russ Mundy on this point).


C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?

I believe the proposals taken together are workable (even if somewhat "busy"), and this also seems to be supported by the community as a whole given the comments/lack of significant objections during the working phases and public comment periods.




From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul 15 00:22:51 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:22:51 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
In-Reply-To: <85D2829A-E6BF-447F-8B0C-A1D1AC8729E4@cooperw.in>
References: <85D2829A-E6BF-447F-8B0C-A1D1AC8729E4@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <9655fbb0dff14b7098114e1828395f37@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa for the update ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:27 PM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG

The CWG had a call last week and one of the action items resulting from the call was as follows:

Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other communities.


The client committee consists of CWG participants and legal advisors from their independent law firm, Sidley. CWG co-chair Lise Fuhr has since taken the action: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000252.html>. As you can see, the CWG is asking Sidley for a quote of how many hours of work Sidley would require to evaluate three scenarios: "IANA's IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust)." My understanding is that once they receive the quote they will decide whether to ask Sidley to do this work and whether to use the output of that work to help form a CWG position as regards the IANA IPR.


Folks who have been participating in the CWG should correct the above if it's wrong.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/3490620e/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul 15 00:23:11 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:23:11 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <0AC9C8BE-4FE2-4DFE-A320-E8775F075AA0@Internet-Matters.com>
References: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<170226252.733943.1436710051553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<F16D8093-A6C3-4BA3-A68A-8C5402A1793E@cooperw.in>
	<0AC9C8BE-4FE2-4DFE-A320-E8775F075AA0@Internet-Matters.com>
Message-ID: <e6b4ec9c5a7843c291075b21ae454a56@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

I support Lynn's suggestion ..
I think it's a good compromise that takes care of both valid concerns !!
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:35 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: Mary Uduma; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Hi Alissa, Mary,

I support Mary's point and see Alissa's reasoning as well :-).   I also note, we should be careful about setting a precedent.

Could we "lean towards" Mary's suggestion, by making Mary's point in the first paragraph that it is the OC's responsibilities to respond as they feel appropriate and we hope they will.  And, then we ask the generic question(s).  In closing, we could say 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 OC/CWG.   This leaves the responsibility with the OC, and hopefully avoids Alissa's concern.

Lynn



On Jul 13, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Mary,
> 
> Fair point. I was trying to be mindful of all of the information we have already received from the CWG. To me if we just forward the question and ask the CWG to respond, we are shifting the burden back to them to tell us to go read their charter again, go review the public comment analysis tool again, etc. I think we should at least acknowledge that we are aware of the charter text and so forth that speak to the issues raised by Richard's comments. But it's true that we could do that and still have our query to the CWG be generic.
> 
> Do others have strong feelings about this?
> 
> Alissa
> 
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> I personally prefer the original formation of the questions from Patrik. If the ICG already has a position or answers to Richards claims or points as being expressed by Alissa, there is no need for the letter.
>> 
>> I would have preferred that ICG just raise  these issues with CWG and allow the Chairs to provide responses as they deem appropriate, in line with the previous method the ICG handled the same Commenter's claim on the other two OCs' proposals.
>> 
>> Should the ICG be seen as proffering responses to its own questions  to or clarifications from the OCs? 
>> 
>> Just a personal view.
>> 
>> Mary Uduma
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:31 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Fine with me too, including Joe's suggestion ..
>> Just one remark, can we replace 'claim' with some other word? Maybe 'point'?   
>>  
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>>  
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
>>  
>> Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
>> On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Draft letter text is below for your perusal.
>>  
>> -
>>  
>> Dear CWG,
>>  
>> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard's claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information. 
>>  
>> Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard's comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim. 
>> 
>> 
>> A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>  
>> 
>> NiRA Email Disclaimer
>> This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or phone number or telephone +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul 15 00:24:13 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:24:13 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum
In-Reply-To: <55A55C94.6080309@oracle.com>
References: <008501d0be53$a9fbf850$fdf3e8f0$@icgsec.asia>
	<55A55C94.6080309@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <00af3bcf96774f7695d004df97f89e36@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

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<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>

http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/589225d6/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 15 01:39:29 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:39:29 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal v4-RM
Message-ID: <013701d0be9f$19f18300$4dd48900$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

The combined proposal v4-RM attached and on Dropbox
(http://icgsec.asia/1K6AUWE) contains the following additions and edits:

 

1. Names proposal has been added to Part 1 and the TOC has been reformatted
to be consistent to the rest of the document.

 

2. All parts contain paragraph numbering as follows:

- Executive Summary: X001 onwards

- Part 0: 01 onwards

- Part 1: 1001 onwards

- Part 2: 2001 onwards

- Part 3: 3001 onwards

 

3. The edits from v2-MI-ALC have been folded in - this is a clean version of
the text, for the tracked changes please refer back to v2-MI-ALC on Dropbox
here: http://icgsec.asia/1HJYmVv.  

 

4. The language drafted by Russ Mundy has been added to pg 11, ¶37 – and
contains an updated reference to the Names proposal paragraph number (1150
instead of 150)

http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000990.html 

 

You may also note that translated versions (based on v0) have also been
added to the combined proposal subfolder on Dropbox here:
http://icgsec.asia/1DfBEUk - these do not contain the Names proposal yet,
this is currently being processed by the ICANN language services
team/translators and will be available later in July.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/c9cc09ec/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v4-RM.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 578759 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/c9cc09ec/attachment.docx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 15 02:53:01 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:53:01 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessments - subfolder on Dropbox
Message-ID: <014301d0bea9$5f811570$1e834050$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

The submitted combined proposal assessments have been uploaded to the
subfolder on Dropbox here: http://icgsec.asia/1ObRVQC  (Evaluation >
Assessments > Combined Proposal). 

 

Feel free to upload any remaining combined proposal assessments to this
subfolder, or alternatively you may also send it to me and I'll make sure
everything is uploaded.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/60abe6d7/attachment.html>

From narelle.clark at accan.org.au  Wed Jul 15 03:14:25 2015
From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:14:25 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC
Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCCB6@ACCAN01.accan.local>


 Here is my combined proposal assessment. 
 
A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatibility appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner? 
 
PTI
Under the Names proposal, IANA is no longer operated by ICANN, thus ICANN would require some form of contractual or as yet undefined constitutional arrangement that is satisfactory to the Numbering and Protocol communities for this to be compatible. At this stage I find it very hard not to see this as an incompatibility, but resolvable. 

 IANA Trademark
Under the Names proposal, 
"In order to identify and isolate the IANA naming functions, both functionally and legally, from the ICANN entity, the CWG-Stewardship recommends the creation of a Post-Transition IANA (PTI). PTI will be a new legal entity in the form of a non-profit corporation (i.e., a California public benefit corporation). The existing IANA functions department, administrative staff, and related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally transferred to PTI. [8] No further transfer of assets from PTI to another entity will be allowed unless specifically approved by ICANN."

Here there is potentially an issue of incompatibility. The fact that the IANA trademark and domain name are not part of the identifiable assets to be transferred to the PTI makes this part of the proposal incompatible with the CRISP proposal, which states:  
"With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role."
 
 
 
B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal? 
 
The lack of specificity from the Names community leads to an unavoidable conclusion that there is a gap in overall accountability. In particular, the Names community should resolve the accountability issues as they relate to what the CCWG has identified as Work Stream 1. These accountability issues are: 1) Recall of the whole ICANN Board; 2) Removal of individual Directors; 3. Approving Fundamental Bylaws changes; 4. reconsider/reject changes to ICANN " standard" bylaws; 5) reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans; 6) Incorporating the AoC into the ICANN Bylaws.

The Numbers and Protocol communities have well established, proven systems of accountability in place already and their proposals reference these. That is, everything seems to exist and work, other than the new mechanism for SLA oversight proposed by the Numbering community, however this appears to be within an established, accepted framework, ie consensus is well evidenced.
 
 
C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
 
The Accountability mechanisms in the Names proposal are essentially undefined so therefore are untested.
 
 
NTIA Criteria Compliance
===================
Handling of ccTLDs
It is arguable that there is an assertion of government control implicit in a specific section of the names proposal and in particular as it relates to the ccTLDs: specifically via:
"1.7: It is recalled that the WSIS Plan of action of December 2003 invites "Governments to manage or supervise, as appropriate, their respective country code top-level domain name". Any such involvement should be based on appropriate national laws and policies. It is recommended that governments should work with their local internet community in deciding on how to work with the ccTLD Registry."
 
Considering both of these together, one is led to wonder about whether this is a potential incompatibility with the NTIA criteria that it "will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution".

The NTIA seems to be more in line with RFC 1591 which asserts that:
"The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each organized by an administrator for that country.  These administrators may further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree.  These administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet community."
 
 




--


Narelle Clark
Director of Operations - Deputy CEO

Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN)
Suite 4.02 Level 4, 55 Mountain St, Ultimo NSW 2007 AUSTRALIA
M: 0412 297 043  |  P: 02 9288 4000  |  F: 02 9288 4019  |  TTY: 02 9281 5322

Join the discussion on Facebook, follow on Twitter or receive our weekly WebNews 
www.accan.org.au






From narelle.clark at accan.org.au  Wed Jul 15 03:22:04 2015
From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:22:04 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #20, July 15
In-Reply-To: <0F953EA4-9B24-4840-921C-7DFF6DF02F75@apnic.net>
References: <BC06E316-2DAE-4D67-A12A-A007A48E8359@cooperw.in>
	<0F953EA4-9B24-4840-921C-7DFF6DF02F75@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCCB8@ACCAN01.accan.local>

Grumble. 5am in the middle of winter...

Hat tip also to the secretariat.

N

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2015 9:58 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #20, July 15

I’ll be in Shanghai and this call will be at 3am for me.  I’ll join if I can, but apologies in advance if I don’t make it.

(I will of course take inspiration and motivation from our hard-working secretariat, who’ll be on the same timezone)

Paul.


On 14 Jul 2015, at 6:55, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Please comment. It is hard to predict whether item #1 will take a lot 
> of time or a little time. If it takes a lot of time, we will have to 
> defer some of the other agenda items to mailing list discussion and/or 
> our next call.
>
> —
>
> 1. Combined proposal assessment
>
> 2. ICG report in the combined proposal
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9njvw4kqcp6st/combined-proposal-v2-MI-ALC.
> docx?dl=0
>
> 3. Public comment period duration
>
> 4. Public comment web site material
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.d
> ocx?dl=0
>
> 5. Review of upcoming ICG commitments and schedule
>
> 6. Minutes approval: F2F #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eowcdcteahjyrp1/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-da
> y1-18-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qx5thshjftairo0/minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-da
> y2-19-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgslbshjgo2nlrh/minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsessio
> n-25-june-2015-v1.docx?dl=0 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Jul 15 06:02:38 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:02:38 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessments - subfolder on
	Dropbox
In-Reply-To: <014301d0bea9$5f811570$1e834050$@icgsec.asia>
References: <014301d0bea9$5f811570$1e834050$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <0DD8E9BBD61F473996BCA0CAE04CB8C9@WUKPC>

Jennifer,

could you please send me this document separately. I can’t access dropbox from Hangzhou.

Thanks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Jennifer Chung 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:53 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessments - subfolder on Dropbox

Dear All,

 

The submitted combined proposal assessments have been uploaded to the subfolder on Dropbox here: http://icgsec.asia/1ObRVQC  (Evaluation > Assessments > Combined Proposal). 

 

Feel free to upload any remaining combined proposal assessments to this subfolder, or alternatively you may also send it to me and I’ll make sure everything is uploaded.

 

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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/c0e00c14/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 15 07:59:56 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:59:56 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessments - subfolder on
	Dropbox
In-Reply-To: <0DD8E9BBD61F473996BCA0CAE04CB8C9@WUKPC>
References: <014301d0bea9$5f811570$1e834050$@icgsec.asia>
	<0DD8E9BBD61F473996BCA0CAE04CB8C9@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <018801d0bed4$42690f30$c73b2d90$@icgsec.asia>

Hi Wolf-Ulrich and All,

 

It’s just a collection of all the assessments sent in so far over the past 12 hours or so – the email versions have been saved as a pdf format.

 

I have reattached everything for your review, please let me know if you are able to access and open these files without any problems.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:03 PM
To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessments - subfolder on Dropbox

 

Jennifer,

 

could you please send me this document separately. I can’t access dropbox from Hangzhou.

Thanks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

From: Jennifer Chung <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>  

Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:53 AM

To: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>  

Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessments - subfolder on Dropbox

 

Dear All,

 

The submitted combined proposal assessments have been uploaded to the subfolder on Dropbox here: http://icgsec.asia/1ObRVQC  (Evaluation > Assessments > Combined Proposal). 

 

Feel free to upload any remaining combined proposal assessments to this subfolder, or alternatively you may also send it to me and I’ll make sure everything is uploaded.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org> 
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-JHA.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 32256 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-LS.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 181439 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-MI.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 179489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-MM.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 185555 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-NC.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 190240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-PW.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-RH.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 191521 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-XL.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 187435 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/9f1af67d/attachment-0005.pdf>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 15 08:57:01 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:57:01 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal v4-RM
In-Reply-To: <013701d0be9f$19f18300$4dd48900$@icgsec.asia>
References: <013701d0be9f$19f18300$4dd48900$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <01af01d0bedc$396a8870$ac3f9950$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please refer to this version instead of the previously circulated one –
v4-RM.doc has correct paragraph numbering and v4-RM.docx does not (MS Word
is a fickle beast
).

 

I have also replaced the copy on Dropbox here: http://icgsec.asia/1K75fnO 

 

All other notes and edits remain the same as before:
http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000995.html 

 

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: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:39 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal v4-RM

 

Dear All,

 

The combined proposal v4-RM attached and on Dropbox
(http://icgsec.asia/1K6AUWE) contains the following additions and edits:

 

1. Names proposal has been added to Part 1 and the TOC has been reformatted
to be consistent to the rest of the document.

 

2. All parts contain paragraph numbering as follows:

- Executive Summary: X001 onwards

- Part 0: 01 onwards

- Part 1: 1001 onwards

- Part 2: 2001 onwards

- Part 3: 3001 onwards

 

3. The edits from v2-MI-ALC have been folded in - this is a clean version of
the text, for the tracked changes please refer back to v2-MI-ALC on Dropbox
here: http://icgsec.asia/1HJYmVv.  

 

4. The language drafted by Russ Mundy has been added to pg 11, ¶37 – and
contains an updated reference to the Names proposal paragraph number (1150
instead of 150)

http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000990.html 

 

You may also note that translated versions (based on v0) have also been
added to the combined proposal subfolder on Dropbox here:
http://icgsec.asia/1DfBEUk - these do not contain the Names proposal yet,
this is currently being processed by the ICANN language services
team/translators and will be available later in July.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/cee2a49a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v4-RM.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1300480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/cee2a49a/attachment.doc>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul 15 09:17:16 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:17:16 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <4A8F1DEB-BEBB-4AC4-A6A1-6454662F11D3@cooperw.in>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ABE5A8@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<78F833A8-BEC6-4464-9999-E2C3F072925B@verisign.com>
	<f5fc63e35f0646be8a9a40d5b6d1c2ec@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<559D3D23.50005@ripe.net>
	<60832124b24e4b5c8c3e0e721387b62a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4FA56451-DA95-4C56-8156-BCCF3CF7D415@cooperw.in>
	<B3C852B7-E3F8-4FA5-BD34-246B129B36E3@frobbit.se>
	<ad9475182cfa42e9921325a810ed4179@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<DAC1BC2B-D3D9-40DB-B529-48D6F32204B2@frobbit.se>
	<49633f63d4284d749152b38fd972a14c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<4A8F1DEB-BEBB-4AC4-A6A1-6454662F11D3@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <8b3e18648fed42d0a9d3ac197e13680e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa .. I agree .. " we should probably confirm with them " ..
Not sure what you mean by " when the time comes " but I believe the sooner the better unless we or they are pending something to happen that would affect their response ..

Kind regards
--Manal 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 7:50 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Patrik Fältström; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Manal, 

Putting aside the question of approval/confirmation (about which we already have a plan in place), I think you raise a good question about actually editing the CWG proposal text. For example, once the CCWG work stream 1 is done, paragraph 106 of the CWG proposal will be out-of-date. I could imagine that the CWG may want to update that text (and perhaps similar text elsewhere in the document) to reflect the fact that the CCWG produced what they needed (past tense) rather than the expectation that the CCWG would produce what they needed (future tense). But this is not something we've discussed with the CWG so we should probably confirm with them when the time comes.

Alissa

On Jul 13, 2015, at 11:49 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Patrik ..
> Allow me to further clarify what I wanted to say inline below ..
> Happy to be corrected ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:36 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Alissa Cooper; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> On 14 Jul 2015, at 4:56, Manal Ismail wrote:
> 
>> Don't we want to seek CWG input on this?
>> How do they plan to approve the CCWG proposal?
> 
> Formally the CCWG proposal is approved when the chartering organizations of the CCWG so approve it. What rules and processes they use each one of them(*), is up to them. Just like the CWG proposal was approved.
> 
> [MI]: Agree .. 'Approve' may be a wrong word choice from my side .. I understand that approval will be done by the chartering organizations .. I wanted to say "CWG confirmation (not approval) that the CCWG proposal meets their requirements" .. 
> 
> It is up to us (ICG) to decide whether what we send in (which is a collection from the three OC) is something we feel can be sent in, and we already do sync with CCWG.
> 
> It is my view that it is up to ICG to, in sync with CCWG, ensure that our two proposals, regardless of how independent they are, do create together "the package" that Strickling has been asking for.
> 
> [MI]: Fair point .. but I thought we agreed in BA that once CCWG Workstream1 output is sent to SOs/ACs for approval, that ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements ..
> 
> Because of this, I think it is up to both us (ICG) and CCWG to ensure that the proposals do not conflict, and the way we do that is to if needed ask CWG for clarifications. It might of course also be that CWG contacts us because of things triggered by the CWG and CCWG coordinating [simply because there are references between the two documents].
> 
> [MI]: I thought that asking the CWG for a confirmation became an agreed step, not an 'if needed' step, but happy to be corrected ..
> 
>   Patrik
> 
> (*) SSAC is since one week back a chartering organization of the CCWG.
> 
>> Is it just an announcement or is there something that needs to be reflected in their final proposal, edits?/references? By ICG?/CWG?
>> 
>> The names community proposal states:
>> " Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision."
>> 
>> Does this mean that if everything is implemented the final version stands as it is?
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:10 AM
>> To: Alissa Cooper
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>> 
>> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>>> 
>>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
>> 
>> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
>> 
>> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
>> 
>> Nothing more, nothing less.
>> 
>> Patrik



From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul 15 09:37:36 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:37:36 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposed Words for Root Zone Management paragraph
 of	Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <AEC72310-B1EC-4452-B1A2-31772873A96D@tislabs.com>
References: <AEC72310-B1EC-4452-B1A2-31772873A96D@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <c78e5257c264407f8b65d149b09c57ea@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks a million Russ .. Noted ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:29 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposed Words for Root Zone Management paragraph of Combined proposal assessment

Folks,

Sorry to be so late getting this se of draft words together - it took several rewrites to reach this point.  The words are intended to go in the "<insert text here from Russ Mundy about Root Zone Maintainer>" section of the combined proposal assessment on page 12.

Russ M

------------


The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root Zone Management process currently has three functional roles, i.e., the IANA Functions Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer, and the Administrator.  These roles are performed by ICANN, Verisign and NTIA respectively.  The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 150) states "Post-transition, no authorization for Root Zone change requests will be needed.".  This paragraph also notes that there is a Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) that will need modification and that a seperate transition will be needed to disengage the NTIA from the Root Zone Maintainer and provides examples of how this might be implemented.  Since there is currently no agreement between the RZM and the IFO organizations for the Root Zone Management process and NTIA plans to disengage with both the IFO and RZM activities, the ICG notes that some form of agreeement between these organizations is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process.



_______________________________________________
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 Jul 15 15:28:35 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:28:35 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
In-Reply-To: <a182b614f04d41e0bbf724666489fd6e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <20150709231118.565CA1C1568@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<3282913b22b140dea54d21b894954ad4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<FF7287AA-DE8C-46A3-BBEA-1402315912D5@cooperw.in>
	<f41a291c87a643e091b452ffeec0790b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<547492DE-3152-40FA-BEE7-414353A74B1F@frobbit.se>
	<79B71C15-6157-4988-92CA-F952D76C4C87@oracle.com>
	<29354F38-EF2D-4E0B-B77D-4DB0E4D5A196@cooperw.in>
	<a182b614f04d41e0bbf724666489fd6e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <DB4E6A52-F8A2-4327-9058-845713427FBB@apnic.net>

+1

On 12 Jul 2015, at 22:06, Manal Ismail wrote:
> I support what, I believe, the discussion has converged to ..
> 40 days public comment period (Jul 31st - Sep 8th) as initially 
> proposed by Alissa, with an early announcement as per Joe's suggestion 
> ..
> The best at hand ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:59 AM
> To: Joseph Alhadeff
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>
> Joe,
>
> Apologies if my message was not clear. I was not questioning your 
> dedication. I was grumbling about the situation that you correctly 
> pointed out, which is that some people out in the world may question 
> our process merely because it involves any work at all in the month of 
> August.
>
> I like your suggestion about announcing this week, let's take it up at 
> the end of our July 15 call.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jul 11, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Joseph Alhadeff 
> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Colleagues
>>
>> I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you 
>> need not impress on me the fact that people work and have 
>> responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the 
>> public reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let 
>> us make a very broadly spread announcement about it early next week 
>> so no one can claim that they didn't know about the urgency of 
>> comments until after their summer vacation began. We should also 
>> underline the need to complete this work expeditiously and therefore 
>> these are not just arbitrary dates.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Milton, others,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use 
>>> Alissa bit more.
>>>
>>> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in 
>>> completing this business in time, that so many individuals do work 
>>> day, night, weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND 
>>> that the timeline is known long in advance and more importantly, the 
>>> work is done in the open with ability to do preliminary assessments 
>>> all along the way....
>>>
>>> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being 
>>> lazy.
>>>
>>> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see 
>>> unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not 
>>> planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we 
>>> produce high quality result.
>>>
>>> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many
>>> people from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
>>>
>>> Patrik
>>>
>>> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this 
>>> week due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have 
>>> prioritized differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN 
>>> people that I have not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each 
>>> one of us do and have to prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I 
>>> expect all of you to do, but as a result I did NOT ask ICG to slow 
>>> down for a few days because of my [excellent] dinner in Paris. The 
>>> contrary, I know I now have to work during the weekend to catch up!
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alissa,
>>>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal 
>>>> for a 40-day comment period.
>>>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with 
>>>> Joe that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as 
>>>> credible. I don't however think we need another week in September 
>>>> as Joe suggested.
>>>>
>>>> --MM
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>>>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>
>>>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days.
>>>>> It is to do
>>>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September,
>>>>> we should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us
>>>>> all traveling to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any
>>>>> analysis of the public comments received at the end of the public
>>>>> comment period. Also, what counts as a full week? Do these people
>>>>> whose vacations will be upset by a nearly 6-week public comment
>>>>> period count the first week of September as a "full week" even 
>>>>> though it includes one day of August?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument.
>>>>> All of us and the people in the communities have been going to
>>>>> great lengths and making significant sacrifices to do the work 
>>>>> that
>>>>> the transition requires, including joining phone conferences in 
>>>>> the
>>>>> middle of the night and from remote locales, staying up all night
>>>>> working on parts of the proposals, flying around the world to have
>>>>> contentious meetings, and taking time away from our families and
>>>>> day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters can't find 
>>>>> a
>>>>> bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and
>>>>> September to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps 
>>>>> we
>>>>> need not balance our needs against how little regard they will 
>>>>> have
>>>>> given to the transition process. To put it another way, I don't
>>>>> think we should blow our timeline to accommodate people who don't 
>>>>> care enough about the transition to comment on it given a nearly 
>>>>> 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> DC lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than
>>>>>> 40-day comment periods
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen 
>>>>>>> as
>>>>> credible..
>>>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length
>>>>>>> of our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that
>>>>>>> call that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public
>>>>>>> comment, then we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 
>>>>>>> (giving
>>>>>>> a day or two to prep the web site and other materials after the
>>>>>>> call). A 40-day comment period would then end on September 8.
>>>>>>> That would provide 7 working days between the end of the public
>>>>>>> comment period and our F2F meeting to analyze the public 
>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> and coalesce them in some form for discussion at the F2F. This 
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> very tight timing, but doable in my opinion. So I think we 
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> make this the provisional plan, of course
>>>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 jari.arkko at piuha.net  Wed Jul 15 14:47:32 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:47:32 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposed Words for Root Zone Management paragraph
	of Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <AEC72310-B1EC-4452-B1A2-31772873A96D@tislabs.com>
References: <AEC72310-B1EC-4452-B1A2-31772873A96D@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <7F5BF018-F92B-4BA9-A6A8-22486E158C01@piuha.net>

Russ,

> The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root Zone Management process currently has three functional roles, i.e., the IANA Functions Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer, and the Administrator.  These roles are performed by ICANN, Verisign and NTIA respectively.  The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 150) states "Post-transition, no authorization for Root Zone change requests will be needed.".  This paragraph also notes that there is a Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) that will need modification and that a seperate transition will be needed to disengage the NTIA from the Root Zone Maintainer and provides examples of how this might be implemented.  Since there is currently no agreement between the RZM and the IFO organizations for the Root Zone Management process and NTIA plans to disengage with both the IFO and RZM activities, the ICG notes that some form of agreeement between these organizations is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process.

This seems reasonable to me. Thanks.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/bcbbed07/attachment.sig>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Wed Jul 15 14:57:34 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:57:34 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <C720220E-68B0-4D4F-B9CB-241B85B072CC@vigilsec.com>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<C720220E-68B0-4D4F-B9CB-241B85B072CC@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <77CCC07E-00AA-43FC-B1BD-BBD665211735@piuha.net>

FWIW, I agree with what Russ is saying below. It is important that our implementation phases respect the overall plans from the whole set of three communities, and some care is needed even after plan approval.

(Although I’m a bit worried about the recent report that Alissa forwarded where there’s ongoing work to look at several options, including ones that would be in conflict with the CRISP plan. Not sure we need that. But I’m sure we’ll be aligned in the end.)

Jari

>> A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?
> 
> The combined proposals (assuming that a set of mechanisms for ICANN accountability reaches consensus and fills the requirements outlined in the CWG-Stewardship proposal) will create a workable system.  This creates an open issue regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain name for the implementation phase.  The CRISP proposal asks for these to be transitioned outside of the operational communities, and then that entity will provide the appropriate licenses.  The CRISP proposal is the only one of the three proposals that specifies this handling, so as long as the other two communities can accommodate the CRISP way forward as part of their implementation, then the proposals are compatible. The IETF has already indicated explicitly indicated that this way forward is acceptable. The CWG-Stewardship chairs have told us to ignore the text in brackets, but that text is written with an assumption that ICANN will hold the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain name.  The ICG requests that the operational communities continue to coordinate on this topic during the implementation phase to ensure that the CRISP requirements are maintained and fulfilled during implementation.
> 
>> B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?
> 
> The CWG-Stewardship proposal depends on a yet-to-be-written CCWG-Accountability document.  That document will provide a set of mechanisms for ICANN accountability.  If it reaches consensus and fills the requirements outlined in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, then the accountability proposal will be complete.
> 
>> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
> 
> The resulting proposal is not streamlined, but it is workable.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/ae7bfab3/attachment.sig>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Wed Jul 15 15:58:52 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:58:52 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <C720220E-68B0-4D4F-B9CB-241B85B072CC@vigilsec.com>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<C720220E-68B0-4D4F-B9CB-241B85B072CC@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <4AFBAB58-16E5-4C1B-93E0-8BBBBF9E82EC@piuha.net>

FWIW, I agree with what Russ is saying below. It is important that our implementation phases respect the overall plans from the whole set of three communities, and some care is needed even after plan approval.

(Although I’m a bit worried about the recent report that Alissa forwarded where there’s ongoing work to look at several options, including ones that would be in conflict with the CRISP plan. Not sure we need that. But I’m sure we’ll be aligned in the end.)

Jari

>> A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?
> 
> The combined proposals (assuming that a set of mechanisms for ICANN accountability reaches consensus and fills the requirements outlined in the CWG-Stewardship proposal) will create a workable system.  This creates an open issue regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain name for the implementation phase.  The CRISP proposal asks for these to be transitioned outside of the operational communities, and then that entity will provide the appropriate licenses.  The CRISP proposal is the only one of the three proposals that specifies this handling, so as long as the other two communities can accommodate the CRISP way forward as part of their implementation, then the proposals are compatible. The IETF has already indicated explicitly indicated that this way forward is acceptable. The CWG-Stewardship chairs have told us to ignore the text in brackets, but that text is written with an assumption that ICANN will hold the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain name.  The ICG requests that the operational communities continue to coordinate on this topic during the implementation phase to ensure that the CRISP requirements are maintained and fulfilled during implementation.
> 
>> B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?
> 
> The CWG-Stewardship proposal depends on a yet-to-be-written CCWG-Accountability document.  That document will provide a set of mechanisms for ICANN accountability.  If it reaches consensus and fills the requirements outlined in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, then the accountability proposal will be complete.
> 
>> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
> 
> The resulting proposal is not streamlined, but it is workable.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 15 16:10:16 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:10:16 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Notes CWG-CRISP-IANAPLAN informal
	call
References: <9F3A8452-0299-44BC-8640-DD2C71859092@netnod.se>
Message-ID: <CC0D8674-F882-433B-91B1-79E138E157E9@apnic.net>

Dear all,

In case you have not seen these notes of the CWG-CRISP-IANAPLAN call - 
posted by Izumi and Nurani (CRISP team chairs) to the NRO IANAXFER list 
yesterday.

Paul.
===


Forwarded message:

> From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se>
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Notes CWG-CRISP-IANAPLAN informal call
> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:44:39 +0200
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Following a request from the ICG to the CWG-Stewardship group (the 
> names community) concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name, 
> the CWG-Stewardship submitted the following response:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-July/003941.html
>
> As part of their response, the chairs of the CWG-Stewardship asked for 
> an informal coordination call with the chairs of the other two 
> operational communities (protocol and numbers) on Tuesday, 7 July.
>
> Below you will find the notes of that call.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Izumi Okutani, chair CRISP Team
> Nurani Nimpuno, vice chair CRISP Team
>
>
>> Proposed Agenda for CWG-CRISP-IANAPLAN informal call
>> 1. Updates:
>> a. CWG-Stewardship response to ICG: 
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-July/003941.html
>> b. ICANN Board's comment to ICG: 
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html
>> c. IANAPLAN?
>> d. CRISP?
>> 2. Discussion
>> 3. Way Forward
>> a. Advice and input from Sidley?
>> 4. Next Meeting?
>>
>> Present for the meeting:
>> CRISP -- Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno
>> IANAPLAN -- Marc Blanchet and Leslie Daigle
>> CWG-Stewardship -- Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> 1. Updates:
>>
>> 	• CWG-Stewardship statement is available at 
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-July/003941.html.
>> 	• ICANN Board note is available at 
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html 
>> (and below):
>>
>> "ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> and the IANA 
>> trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's 
>> performance of the IANA functions. The board recognizes that the 
>> community is considering different models for the maintenance of the 
>> iana.org <http://iana.org/> domain name and the related trademarks.
>>
>> The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of 
>> the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate 
>> rights to use the  intellectual property associated with the IANA 
>> functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an 
>> entity the operational communities unanimously designate.
>>
>> It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of 
>> the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability 
>> to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the 
>> operational communities.”
>>
>> 	• IANAPLAN: no update on this topic since December (approx). There 
>> is a session scheduled at IETF 93 in Prague on 23 July. There is no 
>> agenda for the meeting currently (possible that the meeting will be 
>> canceled).
>>
>> 	• CRISP: There have been no further discussions on the IPR issue 
>> in the Number community. We are moving forward to prepare for 
>> implementation as much as we can. The draft SLA has gone through a 
>> feedback round and a new version will be out soon. The deadline 
>> closed yesterday for the draft Internet Number Community Review 
>> Committee Charter. The document is available at 
>> https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter. CRISP chairs represent 
>> the policy development for this process but implementation-related 
>> aspects should involve the RIRs more specifically.
>>
>> 2/3. Discussion and Way Forward
>>
>> How does CWG-Stewardship intend to close the issue? What is the 
>> timeline?
>> CWG-Stewardship have the CWG, the lawyers, the update from the ICANN 
>> Board, and the response to the ICG. Is the ICANN response, combined 
>> with the ICG response sufficient for the CWG, the lawyers, and the 
>> other communities? The goal, in the minds of the Chairs, is to change 
>> as little as possible. Chairs intend to talk to the CWG-Stewardship 
>> and the lawyers on Thursday this week. As part of this discussion, 
>> Chairs would like to report back on how the two other communities 
>> feel about the issue.
>>
>> How do other communities feel with regard to the two notes? What is 
>> your sense of the urgency?
>> CRISP Chairs felt encouragement with note from ICANN Board. But the 
>> numbers community is not currently holding an active discussion on 
>> this topic [*as no request from the ICG which require consideration], 
>> so the two groups are at a different place.
>>
>> What is the 'feel of the room' for the CWG-Stewardship?
>> CWG-Stewardship has not really discussed both notes yet, but plans to 
>> do so on Thursday.
>>
>> Is there anything that the communities can share to help move the 
>> conversation along in the CWG-Stewardship?
>> We have not yet formally decided whether or not we will instruct the 
>> lawyers to look into this, but in the case that we do, any legal 
>> advice and prior research will be beneficial to them.
>>
>>
>> 4. Next Meeting
>>
>> Will need another in the next few weeks to continue to update and 
>> provide clarity. Grace to coordinate schedules. Possible meeting 
>> before IETF meeting and another one after.
>> The IETF is primarily concerned with ensuring it can continue to use 
>> the marks/domain — as it has done from their inception — both in 
>> terms of the current transition discussion and any changes going 
>> forward. The IANAPLAN WG deliberately chose not to specify how that 
>> should be achieved, so there is flexibility. Clearly, ongoing 
>> coordination will be necessary to ensure we don’t get late 
>> surprises.
>
>
> * Clarification added by Izumi
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer


From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Wed Jul 15 18:12:05 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:12:05 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Some comments on the ICG report part of the combined
	proposal
Message-ID: <8D286A89-6B27-4AE0-9A8B-3BDF1F4A132B@piuha.net>

I made some suggested editorial as well as some substance-related changes in this file that I posted to the Dropbox.

The file is combined-proposal-v4-jar.doc and it is under the Combined Proposal folder.

The main substance-related suggestions are:

* adding a paragraph of further details from the IANAPLAN process
* adding two more sentences summarising the ICG recommendation to align ourselves wrt trademarks and domains
* being clearer about the new oversight being about which part (e.g., in one paragraph it was about names, not everything)
* specifying that the service level expectations work is only about names (other communities have other arrangements already/in development)
* suggesting that we should be careful about the use of the word “incomplete"

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/3ad6433d/attachment.sig>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 15 18:12:51 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:12:51 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment matrix
Message-ID: <008101d0bf29$df32d800$9d988800$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Per Alissa's request, the Secretariat has aggregated the combined proposal
assessments received into a matrix (attached and linked below).

 

Dropbox (Evaluation > Assessments > Combined Proposal):
http://icgsec.asia/1O6SRoT 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/e2832047/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-matrix-v1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 31932 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/e2832047/attachment.docx>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Wed Jul 15 18:42:51 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:42:51 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <aa1f5d30599841128a2b3847551cd147@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<E0ADA38E-575B-476E-A398-81BDBFC8FD59@vigilsec.com>
	<2841bee4be4d469f9d5e194e00f6ba32@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<aa1f5d30599841128a2b3847551cd147@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <539CD4D4-EC79-4CDC-90F6-22F40E11B5D9@vigilsec.com>

Manal:

I have been thinking about this part of your assessment:

> ·         Dependency on CCWG proposal: “The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)”.  Worth noting that it was agreed by the ICG at its meeting in Buenos Aires that once CCWG Workstream1 output issent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements.  Hence final transition proposal is pending CWG confirmation that CCWG final proposal meets its requirements. 

I do not think that the ICG should ask CWG-Stewardship whether the CCWG-Accountability result meets its requirements.  Instead, it would be much more powerful for the chartering SOs and ACs to state that they have reached consensus  on the CCWG-Accountability result and that they have determined that the CCWG-Accountability result completely meets the requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship proposal.  Getting this confirmation from the chartering SOs and ACs seems a more powerful demonstration of consensus for the combined proposal.

Russ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/63a173bc/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul 15 19:00:22 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:00:22 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <539CD4D4-EC79-4CDC-90F6-22F40E11B5D9@vigilsec.com>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<E0ADA38E-575B-476E-A398-81BDBFC8FD59@vigilsec.com>
	<2841bee4be4d469f9d5e194e00f6ba32@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<aa1f5d30599841128a2b3847551cd147@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<539CD4D4-EC79-4CDC-90F6-22F40E11B5D9@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <bf3cea19997f45109a0f216b5b464f38@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Russ for your email ..
It's a decision that was taken on day 2 of our f2f meeting in BA, attached for your convenience ..
Happy to re-discuss if needed ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:43 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Manal:

I have been thinking about this part of your assessment:


*         Dependency on CCWG proposal: "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)".  Worth noting that it was agreed by the ICG at its meeting in Buenos Aires that once CCWG Workstream1 output issent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements.  Hence final transition proposal is pending CWG confirmation that CCWG final proposal meets its requirements.

I do not think that the ICG should ask CWG-Stewardship whether the CCWG-Accountability result meets its requirements.  Instead, it would be much more powerful for the chartering SOs and ACs to state that they have reached consensus  on the CCWG-Accountability result and that they have determined that the CCWG-Accountability result completely meets the requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship proposal.  Getting this confirmation from the chartering SOs and ACs seems a more powerful demonstration of consensus for the combined proposal.

Russ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/eaac8106/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 - Day 2: Action items,	Decisions taken
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:04:01 +0000
Size: 14984
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/eaac8106/attachment.eml>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Wed Jul 15 19:43:00 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:43:00 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <bf3cea19997f45109a0f216b5b464f38@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<E0ADA38E-575B-476E-A398-81BDBFC8FD59@vigilsec.com>
	<2841bee4be4d469f9d5e194e00f6ba32@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<aa1f5d30599841128a2b3847551cd147@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<539CD4D4-EC79-4CDC-90F6-22F40E11B5D9@vigilsec.com>
	<bf3cea19997f45109a0f216b5b464f38@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <5468B874-BB55-4FE8-8287-D95869BDD48E@vigilsec.com>

Yes, I recognize that this was previously discussed in Buenos Aires.  In the hope of getting a stronger demonstration of consensus, I'd like to see if there is a way to get the chartering SOs and ACs to make such a statement.

Russ


On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:

> Thanks Russ for your email ..
> It’s a decision that was taken on day 2 of our f2f meeting in BA, attached for your convenience ..
> Happy to re-discuss if needed ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:43 PM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
>  
> Manal:
>  
> I have been thinking about this part of your assessment:
> 
> 
> ·         Dependency on CCWG proposal: “The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)”.  Worth noting that it was agreed by the ICG at its meeting in Buenos Aires that once CCWG Workstream1 output issent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements.  Hence final transition proposal is pending CWG confirmation that CCWG final proposal meets its requirements. 
>  
> I do not think that the ICG should ask CWG-Stewardship whether the CCWG-Accountability result meets its requirements.  Instead, it would be much more powerful for the chartering SOs and ACs to state that they have reached consensus  on the CCWG-Accountability result and that they have determined that the CCWG-Accountability result completely meets the requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship proposal.  Getting this confirmation from the chartering SOs and ACs seems a more powerful demonstration of consensus for the combined proposal.
>  
> Russ
> <Mail Attachment.eml>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/0aa8bf90/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Wed Jul 15 20:32:07 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:32:07 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Update on meeting planning for Dublin ICANN
Message-ID: <20E8DB73-4B81-4F94-AC35-31F7E973B96C@frobbit.se>

All,

I want to keep you updated on where we are with the planning of the Dublin meeting. Still waiting for formal confirmation.

A few things are looked into:

1. Saturday Oct 17, 13-17

This would require a meeting room, U-shaped, with support for full interpretation be set up a day earlier than originally planned.

This is to be confirmed

2. Sunday Oct 18, 09-12

This works, but not with U-shaped room and interpretation, instead the main room which is auditorium. Looking into how the furniture can be adjusted, because we do request full interpretation.

3. Thursday Oct 22 either direct before or direct after lunch.

We are coordinating with CCWG, and we will most certainly know more after the CCWG meeting in Paris next couple of days. CCWG Chairs are aware of our request and interest.

4. Friday Oct 23, 09-17

This looks ok, and we can use the GAC room.

    Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/61ba2965/attachment.sig>

From yannis at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 15 21:18:46 2015
From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 05:18:46 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #20: Chat Transcript and Attendance List
Message-ID: <8BDCFC64-20D7-4EC5-A592-30C996300091@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 20.  Please let me know if you note any discrepancies.  Thank you!

ICG Members
Alissa Cooper (IETF)
Alan Barrett (NRO)
Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)
Demi Getschko (ISOC)
Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)
Jari Arkko (IETF)
Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)
Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)
Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)
Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)
Lynn St Amour (IAB) 
Mary Uduma (ccNSO)
Manal Ismail (GAC)
Michael Niebel (GAC)
Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)
Patrik Fältström (SSAC)
Russ Mundy (SSAC)
Russ Housley (IAB)
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO)
Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)

Liaisons
Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)

Apologies
Hartmut Glaser (ASO)
James Bladel (GNSO)
Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)
Keith Davidson (ccNSO)
Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)
Martin Boyle (ccNSO)
Milton Mueller (GNSO)
Narelle Clark (ISOC)
Paul Wilson (NRO)
Thomas Schneider (GAC)
Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison)




Best Regards,
Yannis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/09e26763/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Call 20 Chat Transcipt.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 95270 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/09e26763/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/09e26763/attachment-0001.html>

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jul 15 21:25:58 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 21:25:58 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
In-Reply-To: <85D2829A-E6BF-447F-8B0C-A1D1AC8729E4@cooperw.in>
References: <85D2829A-E6BF-447F-8B0C-A1D1AC8729E4@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <8144343e34d6409a91af6477811dc6ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

I  do not understand this outcome. I can understand asking lawyers to figure out alternative ways to do what the CRISP team suggested (namely, make the trademarks and domain independent of any specific IANA functions operator), but the first two options are not, in fact, options, because they don't meet that criterion. In other words, why would CWG be seriously considering options that are going to cause compatibility problems?


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:27 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG

The CWG had a call last week and one of the action items resulting from the call was as follows:

Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other communities.


The client committee consists of CWG participants and legal advisors from their independent law firm, Sidley. CWG co-chair Lise Fuhr has since taken the action: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000252.html>. As you can see, the CWG is asking Sidley for a quote of how many hours of work Sidley would require to evaluate three scenarios: "IANA's IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust)." My understanding is that once they receive the quote they will decide whether to ask Sidley to do this work and whether to use the output of that work to help form a CWG position as regards the IANA IPR.


Folks who have been participating in the CWG should correct the above if it's wrong.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/1794e6cb/attachment.html>

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jul 15 21:26:57 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 21:26:57 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <5468B874-BB55-4FE8-8287-D95869BDD48E@vigilsec.com>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<E0ADA38E-575B-476E-A398-81BDBFC8FD59@vigilsec.com>
	<2841bee4be4d469f9d5e194e00f6ba32@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<aa1f5d30599841128a2b3847551cd147@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<539CD4D4-EC79-4CDC-90F6-22F40E11B5D9@vigilsec.com>
	<bf3cea19997f45109a0f216b5b464f38@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<5468B874-BB55-4FE8-8287-D95869BDD48E@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <d27d7f06d195439c952b292fff3243fb@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Agree with Russ on this point
--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Yes, I recognize that this was previously discussed in Buenos Aires.  In the hope of getting a stronger demonstration of consensus, I'd like to see if there is a way to get the chartering SOs and ACs to make such a statement.

Russ


On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:


Thanks Russ for your email ..
It's a decision that was taken on day 2 of our f2f meeting in BA, attached for your convenience ..
Happy to re-discuss if needed ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:43 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Manal:

I have been thinking about this part of your assessment:



*         Dependency on CCWG proposal: "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)".  Worth noting that it was agreed by the ICG at its meeting in Buenos Aires that once CCWG Workstream1 output issent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements.  Hence final transition proposal is pending CWG confirmation that CCWG final proposal meets its requirements.

I do not think that the ICG should ask CWG-Stewardship whether the CCWG-Accountability result meets its requirements.  Instead, it would be much more powerful for the chartering SOs and ACs to state that they have reached consensus  on the CCWG-Accountability result and that they have determined that the CCWG-Accountability result completely meets the requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship proposal.  Getting this confirmation from the chartering SOs and ACs seems a more powerful demonstration of consensus for the combined proposal.

Russ
<Mail Attachment.eml>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/17c1fc96/attachment.html>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Wed Jul 15 21:32:35 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:32:35 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC
In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCCB6@ACCAN01.accan.local>
References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCCB6@ACCAN01.accan.local>
Message-ID: <6B103B13-1E72-42D6-BF22-040C62B43179@LStAmour.org>

Hi Narelle,

on the call today there was a brief discussion on the point you raise below.  As you were not on the call, and we were missing most of the CC reps. we said we would move the discussion to the mail list..

I stated (and I believe so did Joe, Jari and Manal) that I did not believe there was an incompatibility between the Names proposal  Handling of ccTLDs and the NTIA criteria that it "will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution".    

The WSIS Plan of Action is very broad, and one of the overarching principles (my words, not a formal or accepted description) is the sovereignty of each country.  In addition to the reference you and the CWG-Stewardship proposal quotes, there is also Paragraph 63 in the WSIS Tunis Agenda. "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms."

Further, many models are in place today to manage ccTLD's and many of those models have roles for governments.  The NTIA does not have authority over other ccTLD's today and therefore nothing to "replace" per se.

My .02, others should weigh in.

Narelle, let us know if this address your question.

Best,
Lynn



On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:14 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> wrote:

>  
> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
>  
> The Accountability mechanisms in the Names proposal are essentially undefined so therefore are untested.
>  
>  
> NTIA Criteria Compliance
> ===================
> Handling of ccTLDs
> It is arguable that there is an assertion of government control implicit in a specific section of the names proposal and in particular as it relates to the ccTLDs: specifically via:
> "1.7: It is recalled that the WSIS Plan of action of December 2003 invites "Governments to manage or supervise, as appropriate, their respective country code top-level domain name". Any such involvement should be based on appropriate national laws and policies. It is recommended that governments should work with their local internet community in deciding on how to work with the ccTLD Registry."
>  
> Considering both of these together, one is led to wonder about whether this is a potential incompatibility with the NTIA criteria that it "will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution".
> 
> The NTIA seems to be more in line with RFC 1591 which asserts that:
> "The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each organized by an administrator for that country.  These administrators may further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree.  These administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet community."
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Narelle Clark
> Director of Operations - Deputy CEO
> 
> Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN)
> Suite 4.02 Level 4, 55 Mountain St, Ultimo NSW 2007 AUSTRALIA
> M: 0412 297 043  |  P: 02 9288 4000  |  F: 02 9288 4019  |  TTY: 02 9281 5322
> 
> Join the discussion on Facebook, follow on Twitter or receive our weekly WebNews 
> www.accan.org.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 15 21:36:53 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:36:53 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
In-Reply-To: <8144343e34d6409a91af6477811dc6ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <85D2829A-E6BF-447F-8B0C-A1D1AC8729E4@cooperw.in>
	<8144343e34d6409a91af6477811dc6ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <B4EAA656-B194-4C6A-86F3-3CABA16BE2CD@LStAmour.org>

Hi Milton,

I don't understand it either, and that would be a good question for the CWG.

Lynn

On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> I  do not understand this outcome. I can understand asking lawyers to figure out alternative ways to do what the CRISP team suggested (namely, make the trademarks and domain independent of any specific IANA functions operator), but the first two options are not, in fact, options, because they don’t meet that criterion. In other words, why would CWG be seriously considering options that are going to cause compatibility problems?
>  
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:27 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
>  
> The CWG had a call last week and one of the action items resulting from the call was as follows:
>  
> Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other communities.
>  
>  
> The client committee consists of CWG participants and legal advisors from their independent law firm, Sidley. CWG co-chair Lise Fuhr has since taken the action: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000252.html>. As you can see, the CWG is asking Sidley for a quote of how many hours of work Sidley would require to evaluate three scenarios: "IANA's IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust).” My understanding is that once they receive the quote they will decide whether to ask Sidley to do this work and whether to use the output of that work to help form a CWG position as regards the IANA IPR.
> 
> 
> Folks who have been participating in the CWG should correct the above if it’s wrong.
>  
> Alissa
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 15 22:33:11 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:33:11 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <e6b4ec9c5a7843c291075b21ae454a56@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<170226252.733943.1436710051553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<F16D8093-A6C3-4BA3-A68A-8C5402A1793E@cooperw.in>
	<0AC9C8BE-4FE2-4DFE-A320-E8775F075AA0@Internet-Matters.com>
	<e6b4ec9c5a7843c291075b21ae454a56@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <8F085F04-9D60-429E-B304-04A860E632BA@cooperw.in>

Ok, how is this?
--

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 we use in ICG regarding comments like this, 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 [insert date 14 days after this is sent].

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

--

On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> I support Lynn's suggestion ..
> I think it's a good compromise that takes care of both valid concerns !!
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:35 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: Mary Uduma; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
> 
> Hi Alissa, Mary,
> 
> I support Mary's point and see Alissa's reasoning as well :-).   I also note, we should be careful about setting a precedent.
> 
> Could we "lean towards" Mary's suggestion, by making Mary's point in the first paragraph that it is the OC's responsibilities to respond as they feel appropriate and we hope they will.  And, then we ask the generic question(s).  In closing, we could say 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 OC/CWG.   This leaves the responsibility with the OC, and hopefully avoids Alissa's concern.
> 
> Lynn
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mary,
>> 
>> Fair point. I was trying to be mindful of all of the information we have already received from the CWG. To me if we just forward the question and ask the CWG to respond, we are shifting the burden back to them to tell us to go read their charter again, go review the public comment analysis tool again, etc. I think we should at least acknowledge that we are aware of the charter text and so forth that speak to the issues raised by Richard's comments. But it's true that we could do that and still have our query to the CWG be generic.
>> 
>> Do others have strong feelings about this?
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> I personally prefer the original formation of the questions from Patrik. If the ICG already has a position or answers to Richards claims or points as being expressed by Alissa, there is no need for the letter.
>>> 
>>> I would have preferred that ICG just raise  these issues with CWG and allow the Chairs to provide responses as they deem appropriate, in line with the previous method the ICG handled the same Commenter's claim on the other two OCs' proposals.
>>> 
>>> Should the ICG be seen as proffering responses to its own questions  to or clarifications from the OCs? 
>>> 
>>> Just a personal view.
>>> 
>>> Mary Uduma
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:31 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Fine with me too, including Joe's suggestion ..
>>> Just one remark, can we replace 'claim' with some other word? Maybe 'point'?   
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> --Manal
>>> 
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
>>> 
>>> Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
>>> On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> Draft letter text is below for your perusal.
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 
>>> Dear CWG,
>>> 
>>> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard's claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information. 
>>> 
>>> Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard's comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> NiRA Email Disclaimer
>>> This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or phone number or telephone +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/f8f08dd5/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 15 22:48:49 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 06:48:49 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public pre-announcement: Proposal to transition the
	stewardship of the IANA functions will be out for public
	comment July 31 to September 8 (approximately). More details
	to come later this month.
Message-ID: <006001d0bf50$6c907600$45b16200$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Per the request from the ICG and the ICG chairs for early public
pre-announcement, the Secretariat has posted the following on the ICG home
page and social media accounts:

 

"Proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions will be out
for public comment July 31 to September 8 (approximately). More details to
come later this month."

 

ICG web site: https://www.ianacg.org/

Link to post: https://www.ianacg.org/?p=553

Tweet: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/621446718463283201
(abbrev. to fit)

Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1679144795647486 

 

Please broadcast this to your communities!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/d75e6a02/attachment.html>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Thu Jul 16 02:29:41 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:29:41 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Chairman Steve Crocker blog on #ICANN
	Accountability: CCWG from Buenos Aires to Dublin
In-Reply-To: <6B103B13-1E72-42D6-BF22-040C62B43179@LStAmour.org>
References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCCB6@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<6B103B13-1E72-42D6-BF22-040C62B43179@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <4C683FA2-A9C9-4137-A3F5-13309BB81886@LStAmour.org>

FYI,

good message from Steve Crocker

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-ccwg-from-buenos-aires-to-paris-to-dublin

Lynn


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Jul 16 03:00:52 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:00:52 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC
In-Reply-To: <6B103B13-1E72-42D6-BF22-040C62B43179@LStAmour.org>
References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCCB6@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<6B103B13-1E72-42D6-BF22-040C62B43179@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <e3e5b8c6293d49b2aba0f812ae99ab08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

I was not on the call either. 
But having been involved in the CWG I am surprised to learn that it invokes the 2003 WSIS Plan of Action, as it is a declaration of an intergovernmental meeting at which civil society and business were often barred from participation in negotiations, would be cited as an authoritative source of policy. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
> St.Amour
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:33 PM
> To: Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC
> 
> Hi Narelle,
> 
> on the call today there was a brief discussion on the point you raise below.
> As you were not on the call, and we were missing most of the CC reps. we
> said we would move the discussion to the mail list..
> 
> I stated (and I believe so did Joe, Jari and Manal) that I did not believe there
> was an incompatibility between the Names proposal  Handling of ccTLDs and
> the NTIA criteria that it "will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA
> role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution".
> 
> The WSIS Plan of Action is very broad, and one of the overarching principles
> (my words, not a formal or accepted description) is the sovereignty of each
> country.  In addition to the reference you and the CWG-Stewardship
> proposal quotes, there is also Paragraph 63 in the WSIS Tunis Agenda.
> "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's
> country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as
> expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions
> affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a
> flexible and improved framework and mechanisms."
> 
> Further, many models are in place today to manage ccTLD's and many of
> those models have roles for governments.  The NTIA does not have authority
> over other ccTLD's today and therefore nothing to "replace" per se.
> 
> My .02, others should weigh in.
> 
> Narelle, let us know if this address your question.
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:14 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability
> that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or
> raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
> >
> > The Accountability mechanisms in the Names proposal are essentially
> undefined so therefore are untested.
> >
> >
> > NTIA Criteria Compliance
> > ===================
> > Handling of ccTLDs
> > It is arguable that there is an assertion of government control implicit in a
> specific section of the names proposal and in particular as it relates to the
> ccTLDs: specifically via:
> > "1.7: It is recalled that the WSIS Plan of action of December 2003 invites
> "Governments to manage or supervise, as appropriate, their respective
> country code top-level domain name". Any such involvement should be
> based on appropriate national laws and policies. It is recommended that
> governments should work with their local internet community in deciding on
> how to work with the ccTLD Registry."
> >
> > Considering both of these together, one is led to wonder about whether
> this is a potential incompatibility with the NTIA criteria that it "will not
> accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an
> inter-governmental organization solution".
> >
> > The NTIA seems to be more in line with RFC 1591 which asserts that:
> > "The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each
> organized by an administrator for that country.  These administrators may
> further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree.  These
> administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet
> community."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Narelle Clark
> > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO
> >
> > Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) Suite 4.02
> > Level 4, 55 Mountain St, Ultimo NSW 2007 AUSTRALIA
> > M: 0412 297 043  |  P: 02 9288 4000  |  F: 02 9288 4019  |  TTY: 02
> > 9281 5322
> >
> > Join the discussion on Facebook, follow on Twitter or receive our
> > weekly WebNews www.accan.org.au
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Jul 16 03:05:17 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:05:17 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN Chairman Steve Crocker blog on
	#ICANN	Accountability: CCWG from Buenos Aires to Dublin
In-Reply-To: <4C683FA2-A9C9-4137-A3F5-13309BB81886@LStAmour.org>
References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCCB6@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<6B103B13-1E72-42D6-BF22-040C62B43179@LStAmour.org>
	<4C683FA2-A9C9-4137-A3F5-13309BB81886@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <b9582461544e42a38dfae8d9c4cf0243@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> 
> good message from Steve Crocker
> 
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-ccwg-from-buenos-aires-to-paris-to-
> dublin
> 

Good? This is just a variation on ICANN's familiar tune, which is to avoid any serious reforms by appealing to the need for quick action and hiding behind the coattails of NTIA. 



From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Jul 16 03:08:01 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:08:01 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment matrix
In-Reply-To: <008101d0bf29$df32d800$9d988800$@icgsec.asia>
References: <008101d0bf29$df32d800$9d988800$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <00ae01d0bf74$a2171e40$e6455ac0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Per Xiaodong's request on ICG Call 20, please find the combined proposal
assessment matrix v2 that more comprehensively captures all the assessments
- attached and linked below:

 

Dropbox: http://icgsec.asia/1SoiKlc 

 

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, July 16, 2015 2:13 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment matrix

 

Dear All,

 

Per Alissa's request, the Secretariat has aggregated the combined proposal
assessments received into a matrix (attached and linked below).

 

Dropbox (Evaluation > Assessments > Combined Proposal):
http://icgsec.asia/1O6SRoT 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/45f930a2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-assessment-matrix-v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 32773 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/45f930a2/attachment.docx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Jul 16 03:38:25 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:38:25 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
Message-ID: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Manal and All,

 

Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and
linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all
prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.

 

Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/22811140/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v5.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1304064 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/22811140/attachment.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Jul 16 03:59:02 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:59:02 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Subfolder containing latest versions of public
	comment preparation materials
Message-ID: <00d301d0bf7b$c267a780$4736f680$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Per Daniel's request on ICG Call 20 - please find all the latest versions of
the documents for your review and consideration in preparation for the
public comment period here: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 (Dropbox >
CoordinationGroup > Public Comment).  I will maintain the latest versions
here.

 

Right now this subfolder contains the following files:

 

- combined-proposal-v5

- public-comment-webpage-v2

- ICG-FAQ Published Version (.docx and .rtf)

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/552e0931/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Jul 16 08:07:06 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:07:06 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list
Message-ID: <005e01d0bf9e$6a399140$3eacb3c0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the two lists below:

 

Summary of Action Items:

1.       St. Amour to send a clarifying response on the internal-cg mailing
list to Clark's assessment point regarding to the possible incompatibility
of the handling of ccTLDs (RFC 1591 vs.WSIS plan of action Dec 2003) against
NTIA criteria. (COMPLETE)

2.       Mundy to send to the internal-cg mailing list on whether the ICG
should highlight that the fact that ccTLDs' interactions with ICANN-PTI
structure are unclear (Framework of Interpretation WG final report could
clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet) by next week.

3.       ICG members to send any edits to existing text of ICG report to the
internal-cg mailing list by no later than Sunday, July 19, 23:59 UTC.

4.       Ismail to synthesize and consolidate all of the combined proposal
assessments (compatibility, accountability and workability), list of
implementation steps as well as other missing text into the ICG report and
sent to the internal-cg mailing list for further discussion by Friday, July
17.

5.       Alhadeff to redraft Executive Summary after Ismail has finished
Action Item#4, and include digest as suggested by Subrenat by next week.

6.       Alhadeff to circulate to the internal-cg mailing list current
drafted text of Executive Summary to see if material can be used for a
public comment period cover note or supporting material by Friday, July 17.

7.       St. Amour to shepherd the finalization of public comment web
materials on internal-cg mailing list next week.

8.       Secretariat to consolidate latest version of all items relating to
the public comment launch for ICG review in a Dropbox folder. (COMPLETE)

 

Summary of Decisions Taken: 

1.       ICG to look at ICG Report to see if it clearly describes the IETF
and RIR communities wanting to contract with ICANN, or if text needs to be
added.  ICG to discuss on internal-cg mailing list to confirm whether any
questions for clarification needs to go to the IETF and RIR regarding this
issue.

2.       ICG to further discuss on the internal-cg mailing list regarding
the clarity of questions and other supporting material for the upcoming
public comment period.

3.       ICG has concluded its combined proposal assessment during Call 20.

4.       ICG to proceed as planned to put the proposal to transition the
stewardship of the IANA functions out for public comment approximately from
July 31 to September 8.

5.       ICG to review webinar materials that will be circulated next week
on the internal-cg mailing list.

6.       Call for approval for the minutes of the F2F Meeting #5 days 1, 2,
and wrap-up session to be taken to the internal-cg mailing list between now
and ICG Call 21.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/a4a3a0b5/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul 16 08:30:23 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 08:30:23 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <9f6b3719513d476f98985950f7df0548@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Jennifer !!
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Dear Manal and All,

Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.

Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/713a5500/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul 16 08:37:45 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 08:37:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment
In-Reply-To: <d27d7f06d195439c952b292fff3243fb@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F3418EA0-9BF1-4ADB-8970-05DB11AA445D@cooperw.in>
	<fcecf13074b64047906f0edb49d52544@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCB0A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<E0ADA38E-575B-476E-A398-81BDBFC8FD59@vigilsec.com>
	<2841bee4be4d469f9d5e194e00f6ba32@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<aa1f5d30599841128a2b3847551cd147@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<539CD4D4-EC79-4CDC-90F6-22F40E11B5D9@vigilsec.com>
	<bf3cea19997f45109a0f216b5b464f38@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<5468B874-BB55-4FE8-8287-D95869BDD48E@vigilsec.com>
	<d27d7f06d195439c952b292fff3243fb@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <9b560a539b154d29b17cd92d3eca4a03@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Russ .. I also agree ..
Apologies to have misunderstood your proposal .. I thought you were suggesting that ICG seeks SOs and ACs confirmations instead of CWG's ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:27 PM
To: Russ Housley; Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Agree with Russ on this point
--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Yes, I recognize that this was previously discussed in Buenos Aires.  In the hope of getting a stronger demonstration of consensus, I'd like to see if there is a way to get the chartering SOs and ACs to make such a statement.

Russ


On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:

Thanks Russ for your email ..
It's a decision that was taken on day 2 of our f2f meeting in BA, attached for your convenience ..
Happy to re-discuss if needed ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:43 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Manal:

I have been thinking about this part of your assessment:


*         Dependency on CCWG proposal: "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)".  Worth noting that it was agreed by the ICG at its meeting in Buenos Aires that once CCWG Workstream1 output issent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements.  Hence final transition proposal is pending CWG confirmation that CCWG final proposal meets its requirements.

I do not think that the ICG should ask CWG-Stewardship whether the CCWG-Accountability result meets its requirements.  Instead, it would be much more powerful for the chartering SOs and ACs to state that they have reached consensus  on the CCWG-Accountability result and that they have determined that the CCWG-Accountability result completely meets the requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship proposal.  Getting this confirmation from the chartering SOs and ACs seems a more powerful demonstration of consensus for the combined proposal.

Russ
<Mail Attachment.eml>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/616f5c53/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul 16 08:41:13 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 08:41:13 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Update on meeting planning for Dublin ICANN
In-Reply-To: <20E8DB73-4B81-4F94-AC35-31F7E973B96C@frobbit.se>
References: <20E8DB73-4B81-4F94-AC35-31F7E973B96C@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <7bde5d9f91844687b028b1773ec36fa3@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Patrik for the update ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:32 PM
To: ICG
Subject: [Internal-cg] Update on meeting planning for Dublin ICANN

All,

I want to keep you updated on where we are with the planning of the Dublin meeting. Still waiting for formal confirmation.

A few things are looked into:

1. Saturday Oct 17, 13-17

This would require a meeting room, U-shaped, with support for full interpretation be set up a day earlier than originally planned.

This is to be confirmed

2. Sunday Oct 18, 09-12

This works, but not with U-shaped room and interpretation, instead the main room which is auditorium. Looking into how the furniture can be adjusted, because we do request full interpretation.

3. Thursday Oct 22 either direct before or direct after lunch.

We are coordinating with CCWG, and we will most certainly know more after the CCWG meeting in Paris next couple of days. CCWG Chairs are aware of our request and interest.

4. Friday Oct 23, 09-17

This looks ok, and we can use the GAC room.

    Patrik


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul 16 08:43:21 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 08:43:21 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Subfolder containing latest versions of
	public	comment preparation materials
In-Reply-To: <00d301d0bf7b$c267a780$4736f680$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00d301d0bf7b$c267a780$4736f680$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <128c4f53e25a41e1be9483da13573f3e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Jennifer, and Daniel for the suggestion .. Extremely helpful !!
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:59 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Subfolder containing latest versions of public comment preparation materials

Dear All,

Per Daniel's request on ICG Call 20 - please find all the latest versions of the documents for your review and consideration in preparation for the public comment period here: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 (Dropbox > CoordinationGroup > Public Comment).  I will maintain the latest versions here.

Right now this subfolder contains the following files:

- combined-proposal-v5
- public-comment-webpage-v2
- ICG-FAQ Published Version (.docx and .rtf)

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/8b6f35db/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul 16 09:38:40 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:38:40 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
In-Reply-To: <B4EAA656-B194-4C6A-86F3-3CABA16BE2CD@LStAmour.org>
References: <85D2829A-E6BF-447F-8B0C-A1D1AC8729E4@cooperw.in>
	<8144343e34d6409a91af6477811dc6ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<B4EAA656-B194-4C6A-86F3-3CABA16BE2CD@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <4d7be8b60d374cc68b2a136836728c18@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

I also don't understand what's the timeline of this and more importantly what's the fallback scenario in case this requires many hours and turn to be out of budget ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:37 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG

Hi Milton,

I don't understand it either, and that would be a good question for the CWG.

Lynn

On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> I  do not understand this outcome. I can understand asking lawyers to figure out alternative ways to do what the CRISP team suggested (namely, make the trademarks and domain independent of any specific IANA functions operator), but the first two options are not, in fact, options, because they don't meet that criterion. In other words, why would CWG be seriously considering options that are going to cause compatibility problems?
>  
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:27 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
>  
> The CWG had a call last week and one of the action items resulting from the call was as follows:
>  
> Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other communities.
>  
>  
> The client committee consists of CWG participants and legal advisors from their independent law firm, Sidley. CWG co-chair Lise Fuhr has since taken the action: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000252.html>. As you can see, the CWG is asking Sidley for a quote of how many hours of work Sidley would require to evaluate three scenarios: "IANA's IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust)." My understanding is that once they receive the quote they will decide whether to ask Sidley to do this work and whether to use the output of that work to help form a CWG position as regards the IANA IPR.
> 
> 
> Folks who have been participating in the CWG should correct the above if it's wrong.
>  
> 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  Thu Jul 16 09:55:42 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:55:42 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list,
 Decisions Taken list
In-Reply-To: <005e01d0bf9e$6a399140$3eacb3c0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <005e01d0bf9e$6a399140$3eacb3c0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <9d0717fd250b4d8a94b3395f0ccec428@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Jennifer ..
Bullet point number 2 of the 'Summary of Action Items' mentions that "(Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet)" .. Hasn't the board already accepted the Framework of Interpretation report? I thought it had ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:07 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

Dear All,

Please find the two lists below:

Summary of Action Items:

1.       St. Amour to send a clarifying response on the internal-cg mailing list to Clark's assessment point regarding to the possible incompatibility of the handling of ccTLDs (RFC 1591 vs.WSIS plan of action Dec 2003) against NTIA criteria. (COMPLETE)

2.       Mundy to send to the internal-cg mailing list on whether the ICG should highlight that the fact that ccTLDs' interactions with ICANN-PTI structure are unclear (Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet) by next week.

3.       ICG members to send any edits to existing text of ICG report to the internal-cg mailing list by no later than Sunday, July 19, 23:59 UTC.

4.       Ismail to synthesize and consolidate all of the combined proposal assessments (compatibility, accountability and workability), list of implementation steps as well as other missing text into the ICG report and sent to the internal-cg mailing list for further discussion by Friday, July 17.

5.       Alhadeff to redraft Executive Summary after Ismail has finished Action Item#4, and include digest as suggested by Subrenat by next week.

6.       Alhadeff to circulate to the internal-cg mailing list current drafted text of Executive Summary to see if material can be used for a public comment period cover note or supporting material by Friday, July 17.

7.       St. Amour to shepherd the finalization of public comment web materials on internal-cg mailing list next week.

8.       Secretariat to consolidate latest version of all items relating to the public comment launch for ICG review in a Dropbox folder. (COMPLETE)

Summary of Decisions Taken:

1.       ICG to look at ICG Report to see if it clearly describes the IETF and RIR communities wanting to contract with ICANN, or if text needs to be added.  ICG to discuss on internal-cg mailing list to confirm whether any questions for clarification needs to go to the IETF and RIR regarding this issue.

2.       ICG to further discuss on the internal-cg mailing list regarding the clarity of questions and other supporting material for the upcoming public comment period.

3.       ICG has concluded its combined proposal assessment during Call 20.

4.       ICG to proceed as planned to put the proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions out for public comment approximately from July 31 to September 8.

5.       ICG to review webinar materials that will be circulated next week on the internal-cg mailing list.

6.       Call for approval for the minutes of the F2F Meeting #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session to be taken to the internal-cg mailing list between now and ICG Call 21.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/0cdc23bc/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul 16 12:37:45 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:37:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <8F085F04-9D60-429E-B304-04A860E632BA@cooperw.in>
References: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<170226252.733943.1436710051553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<F16D8093-A6C3-4BA3-A68A-8C5402A1793E@cooperw.in>
	<0AC9C8BE-4FE2-4DFE-A320-E8775F075AA0@Internet-Matters.com>
	<e6b4ec9c5a7843c291075b21ae454a56@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8F085F04-9D60-429E-B304-04A860E632BA@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <acaa96bd29784d2296c57a97eb013189@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

I'm fine with the below ..
If agreed, I have added below a link to how ICG agreed to handle community comments received on its ICG Forum ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 12:33 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Lynn St.Amour; Mary Uduma; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Ok, how is this?
--

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 we use in ICG regarding comments<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May15-final.pdf> like this, 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 [insert date 14 days after this is sent].

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

--

On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>> wrote:


I support Lynn's suggestion ..
I think it's a good compromise that takes care of both valid concerns !!
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:35 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: Mary Uduma; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Hi Alissa, Mary,

I support Mary's point and see Alissa's reasoning as well :-).   I also note, we should be careful about setting a precedent.

Could we "lean towards" Mary's suggestion, by making Mary's point in the first paragraph that it is the OC's responsibilities to respond as they feel appropriate and we hope they will.  And, then we ask the generic question(s).  In closing, we could say 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 OC/CWG.   This leaves the responsibility with the OC, and hopefully avoids Alissa's concern.

Lynn



On Jul 13, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:


Hi Mary,

Fair point. I was trying to be mindful of all of the information we have already received from the CWG. To me if we just forward the question and ask the CWG to respond, we are shifting the burden back to them to tell us to go read their charter again, go review the public comment analysis tool again, etc. I think we should at least acknowledge that we are aware of the charter text and so forth that speak to the issues raised by Richard's comments. But it's true that we could do that and still have our query to the CWG be generic.

Do others have strong feelings about this?

Alissa

On Jul 12, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com<mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>> wrote:


All,
I personally prefer the original formation of the questions from Patrik. If the ICG already has a position or answers to Richards claims or points as being expressed by Alissa, there is no need for the letter.

I would have preferred that ICG just raise  these issues with CWG and allow the Chairs to provide responses as they deem appropriate, in line with the previous method the ICG handled the same Commenter's claim on the other two OCs' proposals.

Should the ICG be seen as proffering responses to its own questions  to or clarifications from the OCs?

Just a personal view.

Mary Uduma







On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:31 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>> wrote:


Fine with me too, including Joe's suggestion ..
Just one remark, can we replace 'claim' with some other word? Maybe 'point'?

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Draft letter text is below for your perusal.

-

Dear CWG,

The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard's claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information.

Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard's comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim.


A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.


Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG




_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


NiRA Email Disclaimer
This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or phone number or telephone +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng<http://www.nira.org.ng>.


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/b1399ce6/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Fri Jul 17 03:30:49 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 03:30:49 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Dear All ..

Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..

Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Dear Manal and All,

Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.

Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/07de0980/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1333760 bytes
Desc: combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/07de0980/attachment.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 17 04:34:56 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:34:56 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list,
	Decisions Taken list
In-Reply-To: <9d0717fd250b4d8a94b3395f0ccec428@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <005e01d0bf9e$6a399140$3eacb3c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<9d0717fd250b4d8a94b3395f0ccec428@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <00f301d0c049$f1fd2870$d5f77950$@icgsec.asia>

Thank you for the clarification, Manal. 

 

For the sake of keeping Action Item 2 clear and deferring to Russ Mundy's
formulation, it will now read:

 

2.  Mundy to formulate and send to the internal-cg mailing list questions
regarding interactions with ICANN-PTI structure by next week.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] 
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:56 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken
list

 

Thanks Jennifer ..

Bullet point number 2 of the 'Summary of Action Items' mentions that
"(Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the
ICANN board has not accepted it yet)" .. Hasn't the board already accepted
the Framework of Interpretation report? I thought it had .. 

 

Kind Regards

--Manal 

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Jennifer Chung
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:07 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> 
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

 

Dear All,

 

Please find the two lists below:

 

Summary of Action Items:

1.       St. Amour to send a clarifying response on the internal-cg mailing
list to Clark's assessment point regarding to the possible incompatibility
of the handling of ccTLDs (RFC 1591 vs.WSIS plan of action Dec 2003) against
NTIA criteria. (COMPLETE)

2.       Mundy to send to the internal-cg mailing list on whether the ICG
should highlight that the fact that ccTLDs' interactions with ICANN-PTI
structure are unclear (Framework of Interpretation WG final report could
clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet) by next week.

3.       ICG members to send any edits to existing text of ICG report to the
internal-cg mailing list by no later than Sunday, July 19, 23:59 UTC.

4.       Ismail to synthesize and consolidate all of the combined proposal
assessments (compatibility, accountability and workability), list of
implementation steps as well as other missing text into the ICG report and
sent to the internal-cg mailing list for further discussion by Friday, July
17.

5.       Alhadeff to redraft Executive Summary after Ismail has finished
Action Item#4, and include digest as suggested by Subrenat by next week.

6.       Alhadeff to circulate to the internal-cg mailing list current
drafted text of Executive Summary to see if material can be used for a
public comment period cover note or supporting material by Friday, July 17.

7.       St. Amour to shepherd the finalization of public comment web
materials on internal-cg mailing list next week.

8.       Secretariat to consolidate latest version of all items relating to
the public comment launch for ICG review in a Dropbox folder. (COMPLETE)

 

Summary of Decisions Taken: 

1.       ICG to look at ICG Report to see if it clearly describes the IETF
and RIR communities wanting to contract with ICANN, or if text needs to be
added.  ICG to discuss on internal-cg mailing list to confirm whether any
questions for clarification needs to go to the IETF and RIR regarding this
issue.

2.       ICG to further discuss on the internal-cg mailing list regarding
the clarity of questions and other supporting material for the upcoming
public comment period.

3.       ICG has concluded its combined proposal assessment during Call 20.

4.       ICG to proceed as planned to put the proposal to transition the
stewardship of the IANA functions out for public comment approximately from
July 31 to September 8.

5.       ICG to review webinar materials that will be circulated next week
on the internal-cg mailing list.

6.       Call for approval for the minutes of the F2F Meeting #5 days 1, 2,
and wrap-up session to be taken to the internal-cg mailing list between now
and ICG Call 21.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/d6ede358/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Fri Jul 17 14:34:26 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:34:26 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fw: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Blog: Additional Coordination
	Through New Transition Facilitation Calls
Message-ID: <10657900049245CA84363C4B5D4CB014@WUKPC>

Alissa, Mohammed and Patrik,

I suppose one or all of you are participating in this informal circle which 
I understand is helping to facilitate the overall process.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 10:10 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Blog: Additional Coordination Through New 
Transition Facilitation Calls

From: 
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/additional-coordination-through-new-transition-facilitation-calls

Theresa Swinehart has posted the following blog:

Additional Coordination Through New Transition Facilitation Calls

One of the words most often heard during the IANA Stewardship Transition and 
Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes has been coordination - 
coordination amongst communities, coordination amongst members and 
participants of working groups, coordination amongst community and staff 
members.

As many who follow these processes know, they can at times be complex, and 
are interrelated. One group can rely on another for various needs, such as 
the formal dependency between CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability, or 
the necessary inputs groups contribute into each other's processes by way of 
Public Comment periods.

At an informal breakfast meeting during ICANN53 in Buenos Aires with many of 
the transition working group chairs and SO/AC leaders, we shared a working 
draft transition timeline, and discussed how we could better ensure clearer 
alignment amongst all the agendas, timelines and expectations.

As a result of the discussion that followed, the group decided it would hold 
monthly facilitation calls with each other, ICANN leadership and NTIA, to 
discuss where each group stands at that given point in time. The group also 
decided that these meetings would not to be used to discuss substance.

The group agreed to share publicly the working draft transition timeline [ 
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.pdf 
  ] (see attached) , as well as an audio file [ 
http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.mp3 
  ] of the first call with the community held last Thursday.  As we move 
steadily towards completion of the first phase of the IANA Stewardship 
Transition process, it is vital that we all stay aligned, and these monthly 
calls will help facilitate that.

To listen to the audio of the first call, please see here: 
http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.mp3







_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1062024 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/17140891/attachment.pdf>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Fri Jul 17 14:45:20 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:45:20 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fw: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Blog: Additional Coordination
	Through New Transition Facilitation Calls
Message-ID: <DED9C6ED5254498CA0C434C4AD0DC8C9@WUKPC>

Alissa, Mohammed and Patrik,

I suppose one or all of you are participating in this informal circle which
I understand is aiming to help facilitate the overall process.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 10:10 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Blog: Additional Coordination Through New
Transition Facilitation Calls

From:
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/additional-coordination-through-new-transition-facilitation-calls

Theresa Swinehart has posted the following blog:

Additional Coordination Through New Transition Facilitation Calls

One of the words most often heard during the IANA Stewardship Transition and
Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes has been coordination -
coordination amongst communities, coordination amongst members and
participants of working groups, coordination amongst community and staff
members.

As many who follow these processes know, they can at times be complex, and
are interrelated. One group can rely on another for various needs, such as
the formal dependency between CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability, or
the necessary inputs groups contribute into each other's processes by way of
Public Comment periods.

At an informal breakfast meeting during ICANN53 in Buenos Aires with many of
the transition working group chairs and SO/AC leaders, we shared a working
draft transition timeline, and discussed how we could better ensure clearer
alignment amongst all the agendas, timelines and expectations.

As a result of the discussion that followed, the group decided it would hold
monthly facilitation calls with each other, ICANN leadership and NTIA, to
discuss where each group stands at that given point in time. The group also
decided that these meetings would not to be used to discuss substance.

The group agreed to share publicly the working draft transition timeline [
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.pdf
  ] (see attached) , as well as an audio file [
http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.mp3
  ] of the first call with the community held last Thursday.  As we move
steadily towards completion of the first phase of the IANA Stewardship
Transition process, it is vital that we all stay aligned, and these monthly
calls will help facilitate that.

To listen to the audio of the first call, please see here:
http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.mp3







_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1062024 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/d72ee375/attachment.pdf>

From paf at frobbit.se  Fri Jul 17 15:06:40 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:06:40 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Blog: Additional Coordination
 Through New Transition Facilitation Calls
In-Reply-To: <10657900049245CA84363C4B5D4CB014@WUKPC>
References: <10657900049245CA84363C4B5D4CB014@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <C17C2CA7-DCE6-40C6-A5C2-BE4B58CDF660@frobbit.se>

Yes, we do.

When they talk about "the first call" that is actually the 2nd meeting. The first was a breakfast meeting at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires that I thought we told you about on the Thursday meeting. My apologies if that was not clear.

   Patrik

On 17 Jul 2015, at 16:34, WUKnoben wrote:

> Alissa, Mohammed and Patrik,
>
> I suppose one or all of you are participating in this informal circle which I understand is helping to facilitate the overall process.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 10:10 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Blog: Additional Coordination Through New Transition Facilitation Calls
>
> From: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/additional-coordination-through-new-transition-facilitation-calls
>
> Theresa Swinehart has posted the following blog:
>
> Additional Coordination Through New Transition Facilitation Calls
>
> One of the words most often heard during the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes has been coordination - coordination amongst communities, coordination amongst members and participants of working groups, coordination amongst community and staff members.
>
> As many who follow these processes know, they can at times be complex, and are interrelated. One group can rely on another for various needs, such as the formal dependency between CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability, or the necessary inputs groups contribute into each other's processes by way of Public Comment periods.
>
> At an informal breakfast meeting during ICANN53 in Buenos Aires with many of the transition working group chairs and SO/AC leaders, we shared a working draft transition timeline, and discussed how we could better ensure clearer alignment amongst all the agendas, timelines and expectations.
>
> As a result of the discussion that followed, the group decided it would hold monthly facilitation calls with each other, ICANN leadership and NTIA, to discuss where each group stands at that given point in time. The group also decided that these meetings would not to be used to discuss substance.
>
> The group agreed to share publicly the working draft transition timeline [ https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.pdf  ] (see attached) , as well as an audio file [ http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.mp3  ] of the first call with the community held last Thursday.  As we move steadily towards completion of the first phase of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, it is vital that we all stay aligned, and these monthly calls will help facilitate that.
>
> To listen to the audio of the first call, please see here: http://audio.icann.org/iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.mp3
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> [iana-stewardship-draft-transition-timeline-16jul15-en.pdf]
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/a705598b/attachment.sig>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Fri Jul 17 16:44:55 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:44:55 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list,
	Decisions Taken list
In-Reply-To: <9d0717fd250b4d8a94b3395f0ccec428@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <005e01d0bf9e$6a399140$3eacb3c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<9d0717fd250b4d8a94b3395f0ccec428@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <F577B1F2-3BD8-496F-8A8F-B3A8E31DDCF7@tislabs.com>

Thanks Manal & Jennifer.  Russ M

On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:55 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Jennifer ..
> Bullet point number 2 of the 'Summary of Action Items' mentions that "(Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet)" .. Hasn't the board already accepted the Framework of Interpretation report? I thought it had ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:07 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Please find the two lists below:
>  
> Summary of Action Items:
> 1.       St. Amour to send a clarifying response on the internal-cg mailing list to Clark’s assessment point regarding to the possible incompatibility of the handling of ccTLDs (RFC 1591 vs.WSIS plan of action Dec 2003) against NTIA criteria. (COMPLETE)
> 2.       Mundy to send to the internal-cg mailing list on whether the ICG should highlight that the fact that ccTLDs’ interactions with ICANN-PTI structure are unclear (Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet) by next week.
> 3.       ICG members to send any edits to existing text of ICG report to the internal-cg mailing list by no later than Sunday, July 19, 23:59 UTC.
> 4.       Ismail to synthesize and consolidate all of the combined proposal assessments (compatibility, accountability and workability), list of implementation steps as well as other missing text into the ICG report and sent to the internal-cg mailing list for further discussion by Friday, July 17.
> 5.       Alhadeff to redraft Executive Summary after Ismail has finished Action Item#4, and include digest as suggested by Subrenat by next week.
> 6.       Alhadeff to circulate to the internal-cg mailing list current drafted text of Executive Summary to see if material can be used for a public comment period cover note or supporting material by Friday, July 17.
> 7.       St. Amour to shepherd the finalization of public comment web materials on internal-cg mailing list next week.
> 8.       Secretariat to consolidate latest version of all items relating to the public comment launch for ICG review in a Dropbox folder. (COMPLETE)
> 
>  
> Summary of Decisions Taken:
> 1.       ICG to look at ICG Report to see if it clearly describes the IETF and RIR communities wanting to contract with ICANN, or if text needs to be added.  ICG to discuss on internal-cg mailing list to confirm whether any questions for clarification needs to go to the IETF and RIR regarding this issue.
> 2.       ICG to further discuss on the internal-cg mailing list regarding the clarity of questions and other supporting material for the upcoming public comment period.
> 3.       ICG has concluded its combined proposal assessment during Call 20.
> 4.       ICG to proceed as planned to put the proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions out for public comment approximately from July 31 to September 8.
> 5.       ICG to review webinar materials that will be circulated next week on the internal-cg mailing list.
> 6.       Call for approval for the minutes of the F2F Meeting #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session to be taken to the internal-cg mailing list between now and ICG Call 21.
> 
>  
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/b8e5ed89/attachment.html>

From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Fri Jul 17 19:13:00 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:13:00 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
In-Reply-To: <acaa96bd29784d2296c57a97eb013189@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <33362a67024842f79cb0ea2696eda47d@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<170226252.733943.1436710051553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<F16D8093-A6C3-4BA3-A68A-8C5402A1793E@cooperw.in>
	<0AC9C8BE-4FE2-4DFE-A320-E8775F075AA0@Internet-Matters.com>
	<e6b4ec9c5a7843c291075b21ae454a56@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8F085F04-9D60-429E-B304-04A860E632BA@cooperw.in>
	<acaa96bd29784d2296c57a97eb013189@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <9D6EA0C3-0515-4128-8556-C7D950399880@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Alissa,

also think this is fine and like the idea of adding the link below per Manal's email.

Lynn

On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> I’m fine with the below ..
> If agreed, I have added below a link to how ICG agreed to handle community comments received on its ICG Forum ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 12:33 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Lynn St.Amour; Mary Uduma; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
>  
> Ok, how is this?
> --
>  
> 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 we use in ICG regarding comments like this, 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 [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
>  
> 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
>  
> --
>  
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
> 
> I support Lynn's suggestion ..
> I think it's a good compromise that takes care of both valid concerns !!
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:35 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: Mary Uduma; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
> 
> Hi Alissa, Mary,
> 
> I support Mary's point and see Alissa's reasoning as well :-).   I also note, we should be careful about setting a precedent.
> 
> Could we "lean towards" Mary's suggestion, by making Mary's point in the first paragraph that it is the OC's responsibilities to respond as they feel appropriate and we hope they will.  And, then we ask the generic question(s).  In closing, we could say 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 OC/CWG.   This leaves the responsibility with the OC, and hopefully avoids Alissa's concern.
> 
> Lynn
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Mary,
> 
> Fair point. I was trying to be mindful of all of the information we have already received from the CWG. To me if we just forward the question and ask the CWG to respond, we are shifting the burden back to them to tell us to go read their charter again, go review the public comment analysis tool again, etc. I think we should at least acknowledge that we are aware of the charter text and so forth that speak to the issues raised by Richard's comments. But it's true that we could do that and still have our query to the CWG be generic.
> 
> Do others have strong feelings about this?
> 
> Alissa
> 
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> All,
> I personally prefer the original formation of the questions from Patrik. If the ICG already has a position or answers to Richards claims or points as being expressed by Alissa, there is no need for the letter.
> 
> I would have preferred that ICG just raise  these issues with CWG and allow the Chairs to provide responses as they deem appropriate, in line with the previous method the ICG handled the same Commenter's claim on the other two OCs' proposals.
> 
> Should the ICG be seen as proffering responses to its own questions  to or clarifications from the OCs? 
> 
> Just a personal view.
> 
> Mary Uduma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:31 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
> 
> Fine with me too, including Joe's suggestion ..
> Just one remark, can we replace 'claim' with some other word? Maybe 'point'?   
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
> 
> Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
> On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Draft letter text is below for your perusal.
> 
> -
> 
> Dear CWG,
> 
> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard's claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information. 
> 
> Regarding his 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). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard's comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim. 
> 
> 
> A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> NiRA Email Disclaimer
> This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or phone number or telephone +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From manal at tra.gov.eg  Fri Jul 17 22:36:55 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:36:55 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list,
 Decisions Taken list
In-Reply-To: <00f301d0c049$f1fd2870$d5f77950$@icgsec.asia>
References: <005e01d0bf9e$6a399140$3eacb3c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<9d0717fd250b4d8a94b3395f0ccec428@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<00f301d0c049$f1fd2870$d5f77950$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <61eb5be30b6d400599adad8ff819357a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

I think you can simply delete 'but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet' ..
But I stand to be corrected by colleagues who are more involved ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 6:35 AM
To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

Thank you for the clarification, Manal.

For the sake of keeping Action Item 2 clear and deferring to Russ Mundy's formulation, it will now read:

2.  Mundy to formulate and send to the internal-cg mailing list questions regarding interactions with ICANN-PTI structure by next week.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:56 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

Thanks Jennifer ..
Bullet point number 2 of the 'Summary of Action Items' mentions that "(Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet)" .. Hasn't the board already accepted the Framework of Interpretation report? I thought it had ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:07 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

Dear All,

Please find the two lists below:

Summary of Action Items:

1.       St. Amour to send a clarifying response on the internal-cg mailing list to Clark's assessment point regarding to the possible incompatibility of the handling of ccTLDs (RFC 1591 vs.WSIS plan of action Dec 2003) against NTIA criteria. (COMPLETE)

2.       Mundy to send to the internal-cg mailing list on whether the ICG should highlight that the fact that ccTLDs' interactions with ICANN-PTI structure are unclear (Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet) by next week.

3.       ICG members to send any edits to existing text of ICG report to the internal-cg mailing list by no later than Sunday, July 19, 23:59 UTC.

4.       Ismail to synthesize and consolidate all of the combined proposal assessments (compatibility, accountability and workability), list of implementation steps as well as other missing text into the ICG report and sent to the internal-cg mailing list for further discussion by Friday, July 17.

5.       Alhadeff to redraft Executive Summary after Ismail has finished Action Item#4, and include digest as suggested by Subrenat by next week.

6.       Alhadeff to circulate to the internal-cg mailing list current drafted text of Executive Summary to see if material can be used for a public comment period cover note or supporting material by Friday, July 17.

7.       St. Amour to shepherd the finalization of public comment web materials on internal-cg mailing list next week.

8.       Secretariat to consolidate latest version of all items relating to the public comment launch for ICG review in a Dropbox folder. (COMPLETE)

Summary of Decisions Taken:

1.       ICG to look at ICG Report to see if it clearly describes the IETF and RIR communities wanting to contract with ICANN, or if text needs to be added.  ICG to discuss on internal-cg mailing list to confirm whether any questions for clarification needs to go to the IETF and RIR regarding this issue.

2.       ICG to further discuss on the internal-cg mailing list regarding the clarity of questions and other supporting material for the upcoming public comment period.

3.       ICG has concluded its combined proposal assessment during Call 20.

4.       ICG to proceed as planned to put the proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions out for public comment approximately from July 31 to September 8.

5.       ICG to review webinar materials that will be circulated next week on the internal-cg mailing list.

6.       Call for approval for the minutes of the F2F Meeting #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session to be taken to the internal-cg mailing list between now and ICG Call 21.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/c61a80a0/attachment.html>

From elise.gerich at icann.org  Fri Jul 17 23:21:52 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:21:52 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list,
 Decisions Taken list
In-Reply-To: <61eb5be30b6d400599adad8ff819357a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <005e01d0bf9e$6a399140$3eacb3c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<9d0717fd250b4d8a94b3395f0ccec428@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<00f301d0c049$f1fd2870$d5f77950$@icgsec.asia>
	<61eb5be30b6d400599adad8ff819357a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <D1CEDBB7.37750%elise.gerich@icann.org>

The ICANN Board accepted the FOIWG report at its June 2015 meeting.
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-06-25-en
The resolution is item D on the consent agenda.
Regards,
-- Elise 


From:  Internal-cg <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org> on behalf of Manal
Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Date:  Friday, July 17, 2015 at 3:36 PM
To:  Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>, "internal-cg at ianacg.org"
<internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken
list

> I think you can simply delete Œbut the ICANN board has not accepted it yet¹ ..
> But I stand to be corrected by colleagues who are more involved ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> 
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 6:35 AM
> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken
> list
>  
> Thank you for the clarification, Manal.
>  
> For the sake of keeping Action Item 2 clear and deferring to Russ Mundy¹s
> formulation, it will now read:
>  
> 2.  Mundy to formulate and send to the internal-cg mailing list questions
> regarding interactions with ICANN-PTI structure by next week.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
>  
> 
> From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:56 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken
> list
>  
> Thanks Jennifer ..
> Bullet point number 2 of the 'Summary of Action Items' mentions that
> "(Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the
> ICANN board has not accepted it yet)" .. Hasn't the board already accepted the
> Framework of Interpretation report? I thought it had ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal 
>  
> 
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:07 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Please find the two lists below:
>  
> Summary of Action Items:
> 1.      St. Amour to send a clarifying response on the internal-cg mailing
> list to Clark¹s assessment point regarding to the possible incompatibility of
> the handling of ccTLDs (RFC 1591 vs.WSIS plan of action Dec 2003) against NTIA
> criteria. (COMPLETE)
> 2.      Mundy to send to the internal-cg mailing list on whether the ICG
> should highlight that the fact that ccTLDs¹ interactions with ICANN-PTI
> structure are unclear (Framework of Interpretation WG final report could
> clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet) by next week.
> 3.      ICG members to send any edits to existing text of ICG report to the
> internal-cg mailing list by no later than Sunday, July 19, 23:59 UTC.
> 4.      Ismail to synthesize and consolidate all of the combined proposal
> assessments (compatibility, accountability and workability), list of
> implementation steps as well as other missing text into the ICG report and
> sent to the internal-cg mailing list for further discussion by Friday, July
> 17.
> 5.      Alhadeff to redraft Executive Summary after Ismail has finished Action
> Item#4, and include digest as suggested by Subrenat by next week.
> 6.      Alhadeff to circulate to the internal-cg mailing list current drafted
> text of Executive Summary to see if material can be used for a public comment
> period cover note or supporting material by Friday, July 17.
> 7.      St. Amour to shepherd the finalization of public comment web materials
> on internal-cg mailing list next week.
> 8.      Secretariat to consolidate latest version of all items relating to the
> public comment launch for ICG review in a Dropbox folder. (COMPLETE)
>  
> Summary of Decisions Taken:
> 1.      ICG to look at ICG Report to see if it clearly describes the IETF and
> RIR communities wanting to contract with ICANN, or if text needs to be added.
> ICG to discuss on internal-cg mailing list to confirm whether any questions
> for clarification needs to go to the IETF and RIR regarding this issue.
> 2.      ICG to further discuss on the internal-cg mailing list regarding the
> clarity of questions and other supporting material for the upcoming public
> comment period.
> 3.      ICG has concluded its combined proposal assessment during Call 20.
> 4.      ICG to proceed as planned to put the proposal to transition the
> stewardship of the IANA functions out for public comment approximately from
> July 31 to September 8.
> 5.      ICG to review webinar materials that will be circulated next week on
> the internal-cg mailing list.
> 6.      Call for approval for the minutes of the F2F Meeting #5 days 1, 2, and
> wrap-up session to be taken to the internal-cg mailing list between now and
> ICG Call 21.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/6fd277b8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150717/6fd277b8/attachment.p7s>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sat Jul 18 10:05:32 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 10:05:32 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list,
 Decisions Taken list
In-Reply-To: <D1CEDBB7.37750%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <005e01d0bf9e$6a399140$3eacb3c0$@icgsec.asia>
	<9d0717fd250b4d8a94b3395f0ccec428@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<00f301d0c049$f1fd2870$d5f77950$@icgsec.asia>
	<61eb5be30b6d400599adad8ff819357a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<D1CEDBB7.37750%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <6ba75f73111643d3bb155c46f83fe348@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Elise ..
This confirms my understanding ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Elise Gerich [mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 1:22 AM
To: Manal Ismail; Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

The ICANN Board accepted the FOIWG report at its June 2015 meeting.
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-06-25-en
The resolution is item D on the consent agenda.
Regards,
-- Elise


From: Internal-cg <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>> on behalf of Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>>
Date: Friday, July 17, 2015 at 3:36 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>, "internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

I think you can simply delete 'but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet' ..
But I stand to be corrected by colleagues who are more involved ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 6:35 AM
To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

Thank you for the clarification, Manal.

For the sake of keeping Action Item 2 clear and deferring to Russ Mundy's formulation, it will now read:

2.  Mundy to formulate and send to the internal-cg mailing list questions regarding interactions with ICANN-PTI structure by next week.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:56 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

Thanks Jennifer ..
Bullet point number 2 of the 'Summary of Action Items' mentions that "(Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet)" .. Hasn't the board already accepted the Framework of Interpretation report? I thought it had ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:07 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 20: Action Items list, Decisions Taken list

Dear All,

Please find the two lists below:

Summary of Action Items:

1.       St. Amour to send a clarifying response on the internal-cg mailing list to Clark's assessment point regarding to the possible incompatibility of the handling of ccTLDs (RFC 1591 vs.WSIS plan of action Dec 2003) against NTIA criteria. (COMPLETE)

2.       Mundy to send to the internal-cg mailing list on whether the ICG should highlight that the fact that ccTLDs' interactions with ICANN-PTI structure are unclear (Framework of Interpretation WG final report could clarify that, but the ICANN board has not accepted it yet) by next week.

3.       ICG members to send any edits to existing text of ICG report to the internal-cg mailing list by no later than Sunday, July 19, 23:59 UTC.

4.       Ismail to synthesize and consolidate all of the combined proposal assessments (compatibility, accountability and workability), list of implementation steps as well as other missing text into the ICG report and sent to the internal-cg mailing list for further discussion by Friday, July 17.

5.       Alhadeff to redraft Executive Summary after Ismail has finished Action Item#4, and include digest as suggested by Subrenat by next week.

6.       Alhadeff to circulate to the internal-cg mailing list current drafted text of Executive Summary to see if material can be used for a public comment period cover note or supporting material by Friday, July 17.

7.       St. Amour to shepherd the finalization of public comment web materials on internal-cg mailing list next week.

8.       Secretariat to consolidate latest version of all items relating to the public comment launch for ICG review in a Dropbox folder. (COMPLETE)

Summary of Decisions Taken:

1.       ICG to look at ICG Report to see if it clearly describes the IETF and RIR communities wanting to contract with ICANN, or if text needs to be added.  ICG to discuss on internal-cg mailing list to confirm whether any questions for clarification needs to go to the IETF and RIR regarding this issue.

2.       ICG to further discuss on the internal-cg mailing list regarding the clarity of questions and other supporting material for the upcoming public comment period.

3.       ICG has concluded its combined proposal assessment during Call 20.

4.       ICG to proceed as planned to put the proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions out for public comment approximately from July 31 to September 8.

5.       ICG to review webinar materials that will be circulated next week on the internal-cg mailing list.

6.       Call for approval for the minutes of the F2F Meeting #5 days 1, 2, and wrap-up session to be taken to the internal-cg mailing list between now and ICG Call 21.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150718/d7375243/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul 21 06:57:02 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:57:02 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] =?iso-8859-1?q?CCWG_Paris_Communiqu=E9?=
References: <D1D2FE3A.ADED%hillary.jett@icann.org>
Message-ID: <4EBEFFD2-F21E-45AE-933F-B4B49C739E8A@cooperw.in>

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> 
> —
> 
> Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Paris Communiqué
> Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Paris, France, from 17-18 July 2015. The event served as an opportunity to further advance the discussion on key outstanding issues and to reach agreement on next steps towards finalizing its Work Stream 1 recommendations.
> 
> This gathering comes on the heels of ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, as well as a series of prior discussions and feedback in response to the public comment period of the group's draft report.
> 
> The meeting had strong community participation, with 76 group members and participants attending in person and an additional 30 joining remotely. Further, several members of the ICANN Board of Directors, Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) representatives, external Advisors and local stakeholders were also present (list of all participants).
> 
> Key issues discussed and agreed-upon next steps are outlined below:
> 
> Community Empowerment Models
> Following close examination and a series of dialogues and exchanges on the merits and drawbacks of the three (3) community empowerment models presented, the group agreed to advance the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model (CMSM) as part of Work Stream 1, noting the momentum that emerged among the members of the CCWG-Accountability in support of this model.
> 
> Under this framework, the Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) would collectively participate together as the sole member of ICANN. This coordination of SOs and ACs would be empowered to take certain special actions within ICANN. Further, an exchange of views will occur with the community before decisions are made. Additional details will become available over the next few weeks as the community continues to develop the framework for this model.
> 
> The 'Empowered SO/AC Designator' and 'Empowered SO/AC Membership' models were also discussed and considered. Brief descriptions of each of these models can be found here [PDF, 564 KB].
> 
> Review of Government Inputs/Concerns Received
> 31 GAC members submitted individual contributions to the CCWG-Accountability ahead of the Paris meeting. The contributions addressed a series of questions aimed at further clarifying the positions ofGAC members with regard to their vision of the role of governments in a post-transition environment.
> 
> While in Paris, discussions focused on identifying requirements such as the role of governments with regards to public policy and assuring that the ICANN Board of Directors does not act outside of ICANN's mission. The group also acknowledged the challenges for governments to make certain decisions regarding their participation into the new community model in time for ICANN54 in Dublin.
> 
> Dependencies between the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability
> CWG-Stewardship co-Chair, Lise Fuhr, articulated the conditionalities and dependencies between the naming community proposal and the work of the CCWG-Accountability. These dependencies fall under 6 areas:
> 
> ICANN Budget: Community rights regarding development and consideration
> ICANN Board: Community rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall the entire Board
> IANA Function Review: Incorporated into the bylaws
> Customer Standing Committee: Incorporated into the bylaws
> Appeals Mechanism: Independent Review Panel should be made applicable to IANA Functions and accessible by TLD managers
> Fundamental bylaws: All foregoing mechanisms are to be provided for in the bylaws as "Fundamental bylaws"
> The group agreed to continue coordinating their activities with the CWG-Stewardship in an effort to ensure that the recommendations put forth by the CCWG-Accountability fully meet the requirements[PDF, 1.4 MB] (p. 20-21) of the naming community.
> 
> Refinements of Independent Review Process (IRP)
> The group reached broad agreement on elements of the enhanced IRP, including diversity as a guideline for conformation and community-driven panel selection processes. Additionally, a subgroup will be formed to further develop IRP rules and procedures as well as fine tune the subject matter for IRP.
> 
> Next Steps
> Over the coming days, the group faces the challenge of addressing all outstanding issues andcompiling a complete 2nd Draft Proposal for a 40-day public comment from 31 July until 23:59 UTC on 8 September 2015. It is important to note that this public comment period will directly parallel the public comment on the Interim Final Transition Proposal being assembled by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
> 
> The first public comment included over 60 submissions that the CCWG-Accountability is carefully considering. Comments were helpful in preparing for the Paris meeting and are being considered in developing the 2nd Draft Proposal. Responses to these comments will be published along with references to the 2nd Draft Proposal to acknowledge substantive changes where applicable.
> 
> The CCWG-Accountability aims to have a Work Stream 1 proposal finalized and distributed to its chartering organizations prior to ICANN54 in Dublin. Based on the current work plan, the group confirms its plans aiming at delivering the Work Stream 1 proposal to the U.S. National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), by late October or early November.
> 
> For more information, visit: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Thomas Rickert
> Mathieu Weill
> León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/d559d9b5/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul 21 13:37:05 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:37:05 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Update from CWG on IANA IPR
References: <024901d0c3ae$92a272f0$b7e758d0$@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <34C9D5C1-F2AC-47CC-866E-B0F71D0B17AA@cooperw.in>

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Request for a quote on two tasks
> Date: July 21, 2015 at 2:12:51 PM GMT+2
> To: <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> Reply-To: jrobinson at afilias.info
> 
> All,
>  
> Following on from the Client Committee and CWG meetings on 9 July, the quote below was received. The Client Committee has reviewed this quote and now proposes to instruct Sidley to commence with this work as soon as possible.
>  
> Please note that the ICG is moving rapidly towards publication of its work for public comment and, if the CWG is to provide informed and effective input on the “IPR Issue”, we do need Sidley’s input and advice to us as soon as possible.
>  
> Thank-you,
>  
>  
> Jonathan & Lise
>  
> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com] 
> Sent: 18 July 2015 09:33
> To: cwg-client at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson; 'Lise Fuhr'; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings
> Cc: Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.
> Subject: RE: Request for a quote on two tasks
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> With respect to Item #1 below, we would expect the stress test and assessment of the IPR issue under the three scenarios below would require approximately $35,000-40,000 of legal work.  This would be for our analysis and review and would not include time spent on follow up calls or iterations of the document.
>  
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best regards,
> Sharon
>  
> SHARON FLANAGAN
> Partner
> 
> Sidley Austin LLP
> +1.415.772.1271
> sflanagan at sidley.com
>  
> From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:58 AM
> To: Flanagan, Sharon
> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; cwg-client at icann.org
> Subject: Request for a quote on two tasks
>  
> Dear Sharon,
>  
> As we talked about during the Client Committee call last Thursday, we have discussed with the CWG Sidley's eventual advice regarding two issues – IPR and a matrix of the bylaws. The CWG agreed to request Sidley to give an estimate of the hours needed in order to perform the two tasks:
> 
> 1.      IPR - To conduct a stress-test approach regarding the IANA IPR issue. This includes four aspects:
> 
> a.  Sidley should consult with ICANN Legal in order to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue. This can be done with the involvement of other members of the CWG – like the Client Committee. Furthermore CWG is considering involving other communities in this fact-gathering exercise.
> 
> b. There appear to be three possible scenarios. IANA’s IPR either:
> (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust).
> 
> c. What risks exist with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship perspective. These need to be evaluated in view of ICANN's position and the proposal from the other communities to determine what is optimal and/or acceptable. 
> 
> d. There are 3 trademarks involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority," (ii) "IANA", and (iii) the IANA Logo, which consists of IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
>  
> 
> 2.      Matrix of the ICANN bylaws:
> 
> Create a matrix to help determine where the bylaws that are needed in relation to the CWG proposal belong.  Identify which bylaws Sidley would suggest that the CWG should draft (be in charge of having drafted), and which bylaws drafted by the CCWG need to be signed off by the CWG. There will be a part of the bylaws that are being prepared by the CCWG that have no direct relationship to the CWG's work and these constitute a third category.
>  
> After receiving the quote, the Client Committee will evaluate the estimates of the two tasks and get back to you.
>  
> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back to me.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Lise
>  
> 
> ****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
> immediately.
> 
> ****************************************************************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/641144e4/attachment.html>

From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Tue Jul 21 15:31:33 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:31:33 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <57753C1E-F798-404F-9CC2-F0F35D4336D1@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Manal, all,

just to say that I am reviewing this and will get back to you soon.  It is important and we need to be ready.

Thanks Manal for all your work.

Lynn

On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Dear All ..
>  
> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..
>  
> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>  
> Dear Manal and All,
>  
> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.
>  
> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>_______________________________________________
> 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  Tue Jul 21 15:44:43 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:44:43 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
In-Reply-To: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>
References: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <27F871CE-BAD2-4C84-A1A1-8EB27BCA376D@LStAmour.org>

Hello everyone,

just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence. 

Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.

ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday 24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for final approval and posting.

Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,

Best,
Lynn


On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I’ve updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from the ICG report in the combined proposal.
> 
> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this by July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
> 
> I’m hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of incorporating feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly tied up with IETF matters next week.
> 
> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final section, that would be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0
> 
> <public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 21 16:20:35 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:20:35 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
In-Reply-To: <27F871CE-BAD2-4C84-A1A1-8EB27BCA376D@LStAmour.org>
References: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>
	<27F871CE-BAD2-4C84-A1A1-8EB27BCA376D@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <00b801d0c3d1$2d7be5a0$8873b0e0$@icgsec.asia>

Hi All,

Please find the public comment web page v3 (final section links added,
public comment date inserted) attached and linked below:
Dropbox link to v3: http://icgsec.asia/1RN2v60

All previous versions of this document have been preserved and moved to a
different Dropbox subfolder called 'Web page materials' (CoordinationGroup >
Web page materials): http://icgsec.asia/1MFLRyE 

All the latest versions of all materials for the ICG public comment period
launch is available here for your review (CoordinationGroup > Public
Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

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 Lynn
St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:45 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2

Hello everyone,

just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence. 

Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and
ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.

ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday
24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for
final approval and posting.

Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,

Best,
Lynn


On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I've updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial
work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from
the ICG report in the combined proposal.
> 
> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this by
July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
> 
> I'm hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of incorporating
feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly
tied up with IETF matters next week.
> 
> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
section, that would be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> [1]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl
=0
> 
>
<public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>___________________________________________
____
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v3.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 31682 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/d7a38d0d/attachment.docx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul 21 16:37:11 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:37:11 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Translated versions of Timeline Graphic v11
Message-ID: <00e501d0c3d3$7ef278c0$7cd76a40$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the translated versions of Timeline Graphic v11 attached and
linked below:

 

Dropbox > CoordinationGroup > Public Comment > Translated public comment
materials: http://icgsec.asia/1gMnjdi 

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Hillary Jett [mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 12:26 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Subject: FW: [Icg-admin] Translation of key materials: Timeline graphic and
other supporting materials for public comment

 

Hi Jennifer,

 

Translated timelines are attached.

 

Thanks,

Hillary

 

-- 

Hillary Jett

Communications Coordinator

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? 

LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . STAY UPDATED
<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status> . FOLLOW
<https://twitter.com/icann> . ENGAGE
<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved> . 

 

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403

Email: hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> 

 

 

 

From: Christine Moore <christine.moore at icann.org
<mailto:christine.moore at icann.org> >
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:46 AM
To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> >
Cc: Christina Rodriguez <christina.rodriguez at icann.org
<mailto:christina.rodriguez at icann.org> >
Subject: RE: [Icg-admin] Translation of key materials: Timeline graphic and
other supporting materials for public comment

 

Here are the files for the ICG timeline.

 

Regards.

 

Christine Moore

Languages Services

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> 

 

HO: 305-420-5153

 <mailto:christine.moore at icann.org> christine.moore at icann.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/8c39bfdc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TimelineGraphic-v11.RU.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 13240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/8c39bfdc/attachment.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TimelineGraphic-v11_AR.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 14180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/8c39bfdc/attachment-0001.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TimelineGraphic-v11_ES.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 13791 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/8c39bfdc/attachment-0002.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TimelineGraphic-v11_PT.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 34304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/8c39bfdc/attachment.xls>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TimelineGraphic-v11_ZH.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 13117 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/8c39bfdc/attachment-0003.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TimelineGraphic-v11-FR.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 12982 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/8c39bfdc/attachment-0004.xlsx>

From kuoweiwu at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 19:38:08 2015
From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:38:08 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Update from CWG on IANA IPR
In-Reply-To: <34C9D5C1-F2AC-47CC-866E-B0F71D0B17AA@cooperw.in>
References: <024901d0c3ae$92a272f0$b7e758d0$@afilias.info>
	<34C9D5C1-F2AC-47CC-866E-B0F71D0B17AA@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <64CFC7A9-E3A7-48D5-8812-CAECF49154A3@gmail.com>

Dear all,

The statement I gave is from the board. The questions asked by Russ are more complex to answer now based on the final proposal of ICG and the operator or operators will develop. As I know, some community like to sign contract ASAP. If the contract signed before PTI, then the trademark and domain name can stay with ICANN or other solution which we have to figure the legal and best solution for all. When PTI is established, trademark and domain name can be transferred to PTI or other solution(?). Then the community might transfer to PTI or remains the contract with ICANN which ICANN can not decide alone.

If there is only one operator, the situation might be easier. If there are multiple operators, it could complex the situation as you all can predict which can not solved by ICANN alone too. We have to sit down to resolve together.

Russ, I am sorry not giving you "firm" answer to your two questions. But you really raise good questions for all to think about.

If we have further solution, I will inform you all ASAP.

Kuo Wu 

從我的 iPhone 傳送

> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月21日 06:37 寫道：
> 
> FYI
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Request for a quote on two tasks
>> Date: July 21, 2015 at 2:12:51 PM GMT+2
>> To: <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>> Reply-To: jrobinson at afilias.info
>> 
>> All,
>>  
>> Following on from the Client Committee and CWG meetings on 9 July, the quote below was received. The Client Committee has reviewed this quote and now proposes to instruct Sidley to commence with this work as soon as possible.
>>  
>> Please note that the ICG is moving rapidly towards publication of its work for public comment and, if the CWG is to provide informed and effective input on the “IPR Issue”, we do need Sidley’s input and advice to us as soon as possible.
>>  
>> Thank-you,
>>  
>>  
>> Jonathan & Lise
>>  
>> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com] 
>> Sent: 18 July 2015 09:33
>> To: cwg-client at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson; 'Lise Fuhr'; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings
>> Cc: Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.
>> Subject: RE: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>  
>> Dear All,
>>  
>> With respect to Item #1 below, we would expect the stress test and assessment of the IPR issue under the three scenarios below would require approximately $35,000-40,000 of legal work.  This would be for our analysis and review and would not include time spent on follow up calls or iterations of the document.
>>  
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>> Sharon
>>  
>> SHARON FLANAGAN
>> Partner
>> 
>> Sidley Austin LLP
>> +1.415.772.1271
>> sflanagan at sidley.com
>>  
>> From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:58 AM
>> To: Flanagan, Sharon
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; cwg-client at icann.org
>> Subject: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>  
>> Dear Sharon,
>>  
>> As we talked about during the Client Committee call last Thursday, we have discussed with the CWG Sidley's eventual advice regarding two issues – IPR and a matrix of the bylaws. The CWG agreed to request Sidley to give an estimate of the hours needed in order to perform the two tasks:
>> 
>> 1.      IPR - To conduct a stress-test approach regarding the IANA IPR issue. This includes four aspects:
>> 
>> a.  Sidley should consult with ICANN Legal in order to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue. This can be done with the involvement of other members of the CWG – like the Client Committee. Furthermore CWG is considering involving other communities in this fact-gathering exercise.
>> 
>> b. There appear to be three possible scenarios. IANA’s IPR either:
>> (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust).
>> 
>> c. What risks exist with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship perspective. These need to be evaluated in view of ICANN's position and the proposal from the other communities to determine what is optimal and/or acceptable. 
>> 
>> d. There are 3 trademarks involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority," (ii) "IANA", and (iii) the IANA Logo, which consists of IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
>>  
>> 
>> 2.      Matrix of the ICANN bylaws:
>> 
>> Create a matrix to help determine where the bylaws that are needed in relation to the CWG proposal belong.  Identify which bylaws Sidley would suggest that the CWG should draft (be in charge of having drafted), and which bylaws drafted by the CCWG need to be signed off by the CWG. There will be a part of the bylaws that are being prepared by the CCWG that have no direct relationship to the CWG's work and these constitute a third category.
>>  
>> After receiving the quote, the Client Committee will evaluate the estimates of the two tasks and get back to you.
>>  
>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back to me.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Lise
>>  
>> 
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
>> immediately.
>> 
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/261073f2/attachment.html>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Tue Jul 21 21:33:00 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:33:00 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Update from CWG on IANA IPR
In-Reply-To: <64CFC7A9-E3A7-48D5-8812-CAECF49154A3@gmail.com>
References: <024901d0c3ae$92a272f0$b7e758d0$@afilias.info>
	<34C9D5C1-F2AC-47CC-866E-B0F71D0B17AA@cooperw.in>
	<64CFC7A9-E3A7-48D5-8812-CAECF49154A3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F7E67D18-6392-4D64-820A-DD86E2240924@vigilsec.com>

Kou:

Your response seems to be incompatible with the CRISP proposal.  Please see page 10; it says:

"With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition."

To my eyes, this text requires that as part of the implementation the IPR needs to be transferred out of ICANN.  I do not think that a transfer to an affiliate of ICANN (that is, PTI) meets the requirement.

Russ


On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Wu Kuo wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> The statement I gave is from the board. The questions asked by Russ are more complex to answer now based on the final proposal of ICG and the operator or operators will develop. As I know, some community like to sign contract ASAP. If the contract signed before PTI, then the trademark and domain name can stay with ICANN or other solution which we have to figure the legal and best solution for all. When PTI is established, trademark and domain name can be transferred to PTI or other solution(?). Then the community might transfer to PTI or remains the contract with ICANN which ICANN can not decide alone.
> 
> If there is only one operator, the situation might be easier. If there are multiple operators, it could complex the situation as you all can predict which can not solved by ICANN alone too. We have to sit down to resolve together.
> 
> Russ, I am sorry not giving you "firm" answer to your two questions. But you really raise good questions for all to think about.
> 
> If we have further solution, I will inform you all ASAP.
> 
> Kuo Wu 
> 
> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
> 
> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月21日 06:37 寫道：
> 
>> FYI
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>> Date: July 21, 2015 at 2:12:51 PM GMT+2
>>> To: <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>> Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>> Reply-To: jrobinson at afilias.info
>>> 
>>> All,
>>>  
>>> Following on from the Client Committee and CWG meetings on 9 July, the quote below was received. The Client Committee has reviewed this quote and now proposes to instruct Sidley to commence with this work as soon as possible.
>>>  
>>> Please note that the ICG is moving rapidly towards publication of its work for public comment and, if the CWG is to provide informed and effective input on the “IPR Issue”, we do need Sidley’s input and advice to us as soon as possible.
>>>  
>>> Thank-you,
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Jonathan & Lise
>>>  
>>> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com] 
>>> Sent: 18 July 2015 09:33
>>> To: cwg-client at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson; 'Lise Fuhr'; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings
>>> Cc: Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.
>>> Subject: RE: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>  
>>> Dear All,
>>>  
>>> With respect to Item #1 below, we would expect the stress test and assessment of the IPR issue under the three scenarios below would require approximately $35,000-40,000 of legal work.  This would be for our analysis and review and would not include time spent on follow up calls or iterations of the document.
>>>  
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>  
>>> Best regards,
>>> Sharon
>>>  
>>> SHARON FLANAGAN
>>> Partner
>>> 
>>> Sidley Austin LLP
>>> +1.415.772.1271
>>> sflanagan at sidley.com
>>>  
>>> From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:58 AM
>>> To: Flanagan, Sharon
>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; cwg-client at icann.org
>>> Subject: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>  
>>> Dear Sharon,
>>>  
>>> As we talked about during the Client Committee call last Thursday, we have discussed with the CWG Sidley's eventual advice regarding two issues – IPR and a matrix of the bylaws. The CWG agreed to request Sidley to give an estimate of the hours needed in order to perform the two tasks:
>>> 
>>> 1.      IPR - To conduct a stress-test approach regarding the IANA IPR issue. This includes four aspects:
>>> 
>>> a.  Sidley should consult with ICANN Legal in order to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue. This can be done with the involvement of other members of the CWG – like the Client Committee. Furthermore CWG is considering involving other communities in this fact-gathering exercise.
>>> 
>>> b. There appear to be three possible scenarios. IANA’s IPR either:
>>> (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust).
>>> 
>>> c. What risks exist with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship perspective. These need to be evaluated in view of ICANN's position and the proposal from the other communities to determine what is optimal and/or acceptable. 
>>> 
>>> d. There are 3 trademarks involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority," (ii) "IANA", and (iii) the IANA Logo, which consists of IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
>>>  
>>> 2.      Matrix of the ICANN bylaws:
>>> 
>>> Create a matrix to help determine where the bylaws that are needed in relation to the CWG proposal belong.  Identify which bylaws Sidley would suggest that the CWG should draft (be in charge of having drafted), and which bylaws drafted by the CCWG need to be signed off by the CWG. There will be a part of the bylaws that are being prepared by the CCWG that have no direct relationship to the CWG's work and these constitute a third category.
>>>  
>>> After receiving the quote, the Client Committee will evaluate the estimates of the two tasks and get back to you.
>>>  
>>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back to me.
>>>  
>>> Best regards,
>>>  
>>> Lise
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
>>> immediately.
>>> 
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/02cac30f/attachment.html>

From kuoweiwu at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 23:03:37 2015
From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:03:37 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Update from CWG on IANA IPR
In-Reply-To: <F7E67D18-6392-4D64-820A-DD86E2240924@vigilsec.com>
References: <024901d0c3ae$92a272f0$b7e758d0$@afilias.info>
	<34C9D5C1-F2AC-47CC-866E-B0F71D0B17AA@cooperw.in>
	<64CFC7A9-E3A7-48D5-8812-CAECF49154A3@gmail.com>
	<F7E67D18-6392-4D64-820A-DD86E2240924@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <B58CD7A5-393A-4415-8603-DCD8B5EF5524@gmail.com>

Russ, 

You are right. We don't have solution at this moment. We have to discuss with CRISP team and legal advice to find the solution. 

You actually raise good questions for all. The board is not get to the solution at this moment now. It is more complex at this moment. As Alissa shared the information. The IPR cover three (?) items need to be resolved.

The board discuss your questions, but not get to the answer yet. It might need to resolve with communities together to find out(?).

Kuo Wu 

從我的 iPhone 傳送

> Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> 於 2015年7月21日 14:33 寫道：
> 
> Kou:
> 
> Your response seems to be incompatible with the CRISP proposal.  Please see page 10; it says:
> 
> "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
> The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition."
> 
> To my eyes, this text requires that as part of the implementation the IPR needs to be transferred out of ICANN.  I do not think that a transfer to an affiliate of ICANN (that is, PTI) meets the requirement.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>> On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Wu Kuo wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> The statement I gave is from the board. The questions asked by Russ are more complex to answer now based on the final proposal of ICG and the operator or operators will develop. As I know, some community like to sign contract ASAP. If the contract signed before PTI, then the trademark and domain name can stay with ICANN or other solution which we have to figure the legal and best solution for all. When PTI is established, trademark and domain name can be transferred to PTI or other solution(?). Then the community might transfer to PTI or remains the contract with ICANN which ICANN can not decide alone.
>> 
>> If there is only one operator, the situation might be easier. If there are multiple operators, it could complex the situation as you all can predict which can not solved by ICANN alone too. We have to sit down to resolve together.
>> 
>> Russ, I am sorry not giving you "firm" answer to your two questions. But you really raise good questions for all to think about.
>> 
>> If we have further solution, I will inform you all ASAP.
>> 
>> Kuo Wu 
>> 
>> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>> 
>>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月21日 06:37 寫道：
>>> 
>>> FYI
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>> Date: July 21, 2015 at 2:12:51 PM GMT+2
>>>> To: <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>>> Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>> Reply-To: jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>>  
>>>> Following on from the Client Committee and CWG meetings on 9 July, the quote below was received. The Client Committee has reviewed this quote and now proposes to instruct Sidley to commence with this work as soon as possible.
>>>>  
>>>> Please note that the ICG is moving rapidly towards publication of its work for public comment and, if the CWG is to provide informed and effective input on the “IPR Issue”, we do need Sidley’s input and advice to us as soon as possible.
>>>>  
>>>> Thank-you,
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Jonathan & Lise
>>>>  
>>>> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com] 
>>>> Sent: 18 July 2015 09:33
>>>> To: cwg-client at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson; 'Lise Fuhr'; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings
>>>> Cc: Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.
>>>> Subject: RE: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>>  
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>  
>>>> With respect to Item #1 below, we would expect the stress test and assessment of the IPR issue under the three scenarios below would require approximately $35,000-40,000 of legal work.  This would be for our analysis and review and would not include time spent on follow up calls or iterations of the document.
>>>>  
>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>  
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Sharon
>>>>  
>>>> SHARON FLANAGAN
>>>> Partner
>>>> 
>>>> Sidley Austin LLP
>>>> +1.415.772.1271
>>>> sflanagan at sidley.com
>>>>  
>>>> From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk] 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:58 AM
>>>> To: Flanagan, Sharon
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; cwg-client at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>>  
>>>> Dear Sharon,
>>>>  
>>>> As we talked about during the Client Committee call last Thursday, we have discussed with the CWG Sidley's eventual advice regarding two issues – IPR and a matrix of the bylaws. The CWG agreed to request Sidley to give an estimate of the hours needed in order to perform the two tasks:
>>>> 
>>>> 1.      IPR - To conduct a stress-test approach regarding the IANA IPR issue. This includes four aspects:
>>>> 
>>>> a.  Sidley should consult with ICANN Legal in order to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue. This can be done with the involvement of other members of the CWG – like the Client Committee. Furthermore CWG is considering involving other communities in this fact-gathering exercise.
>>>> 
>>>> b. There appear to be three possible scenarios. IANA’s IPR either:
>>>> (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust).
>>>> 
>>>> c. What risks exist with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship perspective. These need to be evaluated in view of ICANN's position and the proposal from the other communities to determine what is optimal and/or acceptable. 
>>>> 
>>>> d. There are 3 trademarks involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority," (ii) "IANA", and (iii) the IANA Logo, which consists of IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
>>>>  
>>>> 2.      Matrix of the ICANN bylaws:
>>>> 
>>>> Create a matrix to help determine where the bylaws that are needed in relation to the CWG proposal belong.  Identify which bylaws Sidley would suggest that the CWG should draft (be in charge of having drafted), and which bylaws drafted by the CCWG need to be signed off by the CWG. There will be a part of the bylaws that are being prepared by the CCWG that have no direct relationship to the CWG's work and these constitute a third category.
>>>>  
>>>> After receiving the quote, the Client Committee will evaluate the estimates of the two tasks and get back to you.
>>>>  
>>>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back to me.
>>>>  
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>  
>>>> Lise
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
>>>> immediately.
>>>> 
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150721/6f687bf1/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Jul 22 07:09:17 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 07:09:17 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <57753C1E-F798-404F-9CC2-F0F35D4336D1@Internet-Matters.com>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<57753C1E-F798-404F-9CC2-F0F35D4336D1@Internet-Matters.com>
Message-ID: <a360d2a81dd346bc964c5ba932978064@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Lynn ..
I was starting to wonder whether my message has made it to the list :) !!
Kind Regards
--Manal

PS: Working on the public comment web page too and will get back to the list shortly .. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at Internet-Matters.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:32 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Hi Manal, all,

just to say that I am reviewing this and will get back to you soon.  It is important and we need to be ready.

Thanks Manal for all your work.

Lynn

On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Dear All ..
>  
> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..
>  
> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>  
> Dear Manal and All,
>  
> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.
>  
> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul 22 12:58:07 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:58:07 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC
In-Reply-To: <e3e5b8c6293d49b2aba0f812ae99ab08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBAFCCB6@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<6B103B13-1E72-42D6-BF22-040C62B43179@LStAmour.org>
	<e3e5b8c6293d49b2aba0f812ae99ab08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ACF468@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

[In case this is still an open issue!]

Like Milton I had missed the CWG reference to WSIS phase 1 (paragraph 83 on page 15 of the proposal).  It is actually included because of the reference from the 2005 GAC (which predated the rather more satisfactory wording in paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda).  I guess the inclusion was to make clear national interest and that ccTLDs were not the property, or under the jurisdiction, of the US, which was a major concern for many governments through the WSIS process.

Lynn's assessment in my mind is correct:  "The NTIA does not have authority over other [countries' ccTLDs] today and therefore nothing to "replace" per se."

Hope this helps

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 16 July 2015 04:01
To: Lynn St.Amour; Narelle Clark
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC

I was not on the call either. 
But having been involved in the CWG I am surprised to learn that it invokes the 2003 WSIS Plan of Action, as it is a declaration of an intergovernmental meeting at which civil society and business were often barred from participation in negotiations, would be cited as an authoritative source of policy. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:33 PM
> To: Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC
> 
> Hi Narelle,
> 
> on the call today there was a brief discussion on the point you raise below.
> As you were not on the call, and we were missing most of the CC reps. 
> we said we would move the discussion to the mail list..
> 
> I stated (and I believe so did Joe, Jari and Manal) that I did not 
> believe there was an incompatibility between the Names proposal  
> Handling of ccTLDs and the NTIA criteria that it "will not accept a 
> proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution".
> 
> The WSIS Plan of Action is very broad, and one of the overarching 
> principles (my words, not a formal or accepted description) is the 
> sovereignty of each country.  In addition to the reference you and the 
> CWG-Stewardship proposal quotes, there is also Paragraph 63 in the WSIS Tunis Agenda.
> "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another 
> country's country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate 
> interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, 
> regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, 
> upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms."
> 
> Further, many models are in place today to manage ccTLD's and many of 
> those models have roles for governments.  The NTIA does not have 
> authority over other ccTLD's today and therefore nothing to "replace" per se.
> 
> My .02, others should weigh in.
> 
> Narelle, let us know if this address your question.
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:14 PM, Narelle Clark 
> <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of 
> > workability
> that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other 
> or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
> >
> > The Accountability mechanisms in the Names proposal are essentially
> undefined so therefore are untested.
> >
> >
> > NTIA Criteria Compliance
> > ===================
> > Handling of ccTLDs
> > It is arguable that there is an assertion of government control 
> > implicit in a
> specific section of the names proposal and in particular as it relates 
> to the
> ccTLDs: specifically via:
> > "1.7: It is recalled that the WSIS Plan of action of December 2003 
> > invites
> "Governments to manage or supervise, as appropriate, their respective 
> country code top-level domain name". Any such involvement should be 
> based on appropriate national laws and policies. It is recommended 
> that governments should work with their local internet community in 
> deciding on how to work with the ccTLD Registry."
> >
> > Considering both of these together, one is led to wonder about 
> > whether
> this is a potential incompatibility with the NTIA criteria that it 
> "will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a 
> government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution".
> >
> > The NTIA seems to be more in line with RFC 1591 which asserts that:
> > "The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each
> organized by an administrator for that country.  These administrators 
> may further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree.  
> These administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the 
> Internet community."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Narelle Clark
> > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO
> >
> > Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) Suite 4.02 
> > Level 4, 55 Mountain St, Ultimo NSW 2007 AUSTRALIA
> > M: 0412 297 043  |  P: 02 9288 4000  |  F: 02 9288 4019  |  TTY: 02
> > 9281 5322
> >
> > Join the discussion on Facebook, follow on Twitter or receive our 
> > weekly WebNews www.accan.org.au
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Wed Jul 22 13:27:02 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:27:02 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
Message-ID: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Jennifer ..

Thanks Lynn ..
Please find attached and on Dropbox a few remarks marked in track changes ..

Kind Regards
--Manal  

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:21 PM
To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2

Hi All,

Please find the public comment web page v3 (final section links added, public comment date inserted) attached and linked below:
Dropbox link to v3: http://icgsec.asia/1RN2v60

All previous versions of this document have been preserved and moved to a different Dropbox subfolder called 'Web page materials' (CoordinationGroup > Web page materials): http://icgsec.asia/1MFLRyE 

All the latest versions of all materials for the ICG public comment period launch is available here for your review (CoordinationGroup > Public
Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

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 Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:45 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2

Hello everyone,

just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence. 

Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.

ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday 24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for final approval and posting.

Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,

Best,
Lynn


On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I've updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from the ICG report in the combined proposal.
> 
> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this 
> by
July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
> 
> I'm hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of 
> incorporating
feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly tied up with IETF matters next week.
> 
> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
section, that would be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> [1]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl
=0
> 
>
<public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>___________________________________________
____
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v3-MI.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 41317 bytes
Desc: public-comment-web-page-v3-MI.docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/d4f28274/attachment.docx>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Wed Jul 22 14:45:39 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:45:39 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
In-Reply-To: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <55AFAC93.9000809@oracle.com>

Colleagues:

As I read this material, I think we have most of the necessary elements, 
but or the non-initiated the flow might be confusing. I have added a 
couple of comments on where flow could be improved.  I have also 
suggested the inclusion of a diagram.

Unfortunately I can't engage in detailed drafting on this till Monday, 
but would be happy to if that is within the viable time-frame.

Joe



On 7/22/2015 9:27 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:
> Thanks Jennifer ..
>
> Thanks Lynn ..
> Please find attached and on Dropbox a few remarks marked in track changes ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:21 PM
> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please find the public comment web page v3 (final section links added, public comment date inserted) attached and linked below:
> Dropbox link to v3: http://icgsec.asia/1RN2v60
>
> All previous versions of this document have been preserved and moved to a different Dropbox subfolder called 'Web page materials' (CoordinationGroup > Web page materials): http://icgsec.asia/1MFLRyE
>
> All the latest versions of all materials for the ICG public comment period launch is available here for your review (CoordinationGroup > Public
> Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>
> 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 Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:45 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence.
>
> Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.
>
> ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday 24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for final approval and posting.
>
> Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I've updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
> discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from the ICG report in the combined proposal.
>> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this
>> by
> July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
>> I'm hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of
>> incorporating
> feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly tied up with IETF matters next week.
>> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
> section, that would be great.
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>>
>> [1]
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl
> =0
>>
> <public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>___________________________________________
> ____
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/31e6c4aa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-jha.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 39255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/31e6c4aa/attachment.docx>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Wed Jul 22 15:15:44 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:15:44 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in><82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com><FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>

Dear Elise, all,

as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


From: Elise Gerich 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper 
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Wolf-Ulrich,
We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
-- Elise 


From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments


  Kuo-Wei,

  I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times 
  in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in 
  order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation. 
  They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is 
  crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the 
  system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
  Career plan of staff is one element between others.
  I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff 
  liaison could gide us.

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich

  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
  From: Wu Kuo-Wei
  Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
  To: Alissa Cooper
  Cc: ICG Coordination Group
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

  If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the 
  liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.

    Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：

    Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a 
    few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.

    Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point 
    out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of 
    implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would 
    be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. 
    Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?

  It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate 
  the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input 
  from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term 
  stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the 
  career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status, 
  IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan, 
  and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn 
  IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but 
  ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than 
  SLA, budget,..).

  Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my 
  comment.

  Thanks.

  Kuo Wu


    Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be 
    considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My 
    question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public 
    comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? 
    My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.

    Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s 
    relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I 
    note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of 
    the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our 
    work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.

    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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/4c8e47d7/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Wed Jul 22 15:22:55 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:22:55 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in><82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com><FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <55AFB54F.9060707@oracle.com>

it would be useful if there was a proposed agenda to help plan external 
meetings that we could all benefit from...

On 7/22/2015 11:15 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> Dear Elise, all,
> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged 
> thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of 
> the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA 
> department – in an individual capacity.
> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in 
> the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official 
> way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested 
> and find time to join.
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
> *From:* Elise Gerich <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
> *To:* WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; 
> kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com> ; Alissa Cooper 
> <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> Wolf-Ulrich,
> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are 
> curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational 
> structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
> -- Elise
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>" 
> <kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>>, Alissa Cooper 
> <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" 
> <internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>
>     Kuo-Wei,
>     I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger
>     several times
>     in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in
>     BA - in
>     order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA
>     organisation.
>     They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence
>     which is
>     crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
>     system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
>     Career plan of staff is one element between others.
>     I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise
>     as staff
>     liaison could gide us.
>     Best regards
>     Wolf-Ulrich
>     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>     From: Wu Kuo-Wei
>     Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
>     To: Alissa Cooper
>     Cc: ICG Coordination Group
>     Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>     If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t
>     agree the
>     liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>
>         Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
>         於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>         Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I
>         wrote down a
>         few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>         Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and
>         Martin) point
>         out that there are areas where more detail will be developed
>         as part of
>         implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget,
>         etc.). It would
>         be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our
>         reference.
>         Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>
>     It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try
>     to separate
>     the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get
>     some input
>     from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the
>     long term
>     stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working
>     well for the
>     career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current
>     status,
>     IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better
>     career plan,
>     and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need
>     to learn
>     IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future,
>     but
>     ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list
>     other than
>     SLA, budget,..).
>     Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say,
>     please drop my
>     comment.
>     Thanks.
>     Kuo Wu
>
>         Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal
>         cannot be
>         considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the
>         CCWG. My
>         question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward
>         with public
>         comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of
>         the CCWG?
>         My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>         Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone
>         Maintainer’s
>         relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion
>         of that. I
>         note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its
>         approval of
>         the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking
>         on our
>         work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek
>         clarification.
>         Alissa
>         _______________________________________________
>         Internal-cg mailing list
>         Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>         http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Internal-cg mailing list
>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>     _______________________________________________
>     Internal-cg mailing list
>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/b235c911/attachment.html>

From glaser at cgi.br  Wed Jul 22 15:44:38 2015
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in><82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com><FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <55AFBA66.8000703@cgi.br>


+1 => I like to join

==================================
On 7/22/15 12:15 PM, WUKnoben wrote:
> Dear Elise, all,
> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged 
> thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of 
> the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA 
> department – in an individual capacity.
> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in 
> the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official 
> way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested 
> and find time to join.
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
> *From:* Elise Gerich <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
> *To:* WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; 
> kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com> ; Alissa Cooper 
> <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> Wolf-Ulrich,
> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are 
> curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational 
> structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
> -- Elise
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>" 
> <kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>>, Alissa Cooper 
> <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" 
> <internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>
>     Kuo-Wei,
>     I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger
>     several times
>     in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in
>     BA - in
>     order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA
>     organisation.
>     They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence
>     which is
>     crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
>     system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
>     Career plan of staff is one element between others.
>     I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise
>     as staff
>     liaison could gide us.
>     Best regards
>     Wolf-Ulrich
>     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>     From: Wu Kuo-Wei
>     Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
>     To: Alissa Cooper
>     Cc: ICG Coordination Group
>     Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>     If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t
>     agree the
>     liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>
>         Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
>         於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>         Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I
>         wrote down a
>         few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>         Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and
>         Martin) point
>         out that there are areas where more detail will be developed
>         as part of
>         implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget,
>         etc.). It would
>         be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our
>         reference.
>         Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>
>     It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try
>     to separate
>     the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get
>     some input
>     from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the
>     long term
>     stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working
>     well for the
>     career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current
>     status,
>     IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better
>     career plan,
>     and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need
>     to learn
>     IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future,
>     but
>     ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list
>     other than
>     SLA, budget,..).
>     Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say,
>     please drop my
>     comment.
>     Thanks.
>     Kuo Wu
>
>         Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal
>         cannot be
>         considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the
>         CCWG. My
>         question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward
>         with public
>         comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of
>         the CCWG?
>         My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>         Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone
>         Maintainer’s
>         relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion
>         of that. I
>         note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its
>         approval of
>         the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking
>         on our
>         work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek
>         clarification.
>         Alissa
>         _______________________________________________
>         Internal-cg mailing list
>         Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>         http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Internal-cg mailing list
>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>     _______________________________________________
>     Internal-cg mailing list
>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/173fc17d/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Wed Jul 22 15:51:13 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:51:13 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <55AFBA66.8000703@cgi.br>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in><82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com><FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
	<55AFBA66.8000703@cgi.br>
Message-ID: <55AFBBF1.6050401@oracle.com>

We've never taken a group picture, this could be our chance!  :-)

On 7/22/2015 11:44 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote:
>
> +1 => I like to join
>
> ==================================
> On 7/22/15 12:15 PM, WUKnoben wrote:
>> Dear Elise, all,
>> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been 
>> arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make 
>> best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and 
>> visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
>> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in 
>> the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a 
>> non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues 
>> are interested and find time to join.
>> Best regards
>>
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> *From:* Elise Gerich <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
>> *To:* WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; 
>> kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com> ; Alissa Cooper 
>> <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
>> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>> Wolf-Ulrich,
>> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are 
>> curious as to what the final impact will be on our current 
>> operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
>> -- Elise
>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
>> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
>> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
>> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>" 
>> <kuoweiwu at gmail.com <mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>>, Alissa Cooper 
>> <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" 
>> <internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>
>>     Kuo-Wei,
>>     I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger
>>     several times
>>     in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in
>>     BA - in
>>     order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA
>>     organisation.
>>     They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence
>>     which is
>>     crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of
>>     the
>>     system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
>>     Career plan of staff is one element between others.
>>     I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise
>>     as staff
>>     liaison could gide us.
>>     Best regards
>>     Wolf-Ulrich
>>     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>     From: Wu Kuo-Wei
>>     Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
>>     To: Alissa Cooper
>>     Cc: ICG Coordination Group
>>     Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>     If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t
>>     agree the
>>     liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>>
>>         Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
>>         於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>>         Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I
>>         wrote down a
>>         few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>>         Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and
>>         Martin) point
>>         out that there are areas where more detail will be developed
>>         as part of
>>         implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget,
>>         etc.). It would
>>         be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for
>>         our reference.
>>         Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>>
>>     It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try
>>     to separate
>>     the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get
>>     some input
>>     from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as
>>     the long term
>>     stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working
>>     well for the
>>     career development for IANA people in the long run. At the
>>     current status,
>>     IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better
>>     career plan,
>>     and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need
>>     to learn
>>     IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their
>>     future, but
>>     ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list
>>     other than
>>     SLA, budget,..).
>>     Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say,
>>     please drop my
>>     comment.
>>     Thanks.
>>     Kuo Wu
>>
>>         Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal
>>         cannot be
>>         considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the
>>         CCWG. My
>>         question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward
>>         with public
>>         comment and proposal finalization while we await the output
>>         of the CCWG?
>>         My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>>         Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone
>>         Maintainer’s
>>         relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion
>>         of that. I
>>         note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its
>>         approval of
>>         the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily
>>         blocking on our
>>         work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek
>>         clarification.
>>         Alissa
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Internal-cg mailing list
>>         Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>         http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Internal-cg mailing list
>>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Internal-cg mailing list
>>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/4db5ab4d/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul 22 15:57:11 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:57:11 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in><82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com><FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ACFBB3@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

That is a good idea: if it happens, I’d like to join.  Unfortunately I do not arrive in LA until well into the evening on 17 September, so it probably is not practical for me.

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: 22 July 2015 16:16
To: Elise Gerich; kuoweiwu at gmail.com; Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Dear Elise, all,

as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.
Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Elise Gerich<mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com> ; Alissa Cooper<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Wolf-Ulrich,
We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
-- Elise


From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu at gmail.com>>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Kuo-Wei,

I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times
in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in
order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation.
They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is
crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
Career plan of staff is one element between others.
I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff
liaison could gide us.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Wu Kuo-Wei
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the
liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.

Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：

Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a
few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.

Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point
out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of
implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would
be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference.
Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?

It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate
the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input
from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term
stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the
career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status,
IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan,
and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn
IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but
ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than
SLA, budget,..).

Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my
comment.

Thanks.

Kuo Wu


Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.

Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I
note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of
the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our
work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.

Alissa



_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/bcf65923/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 22 16:03:23 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:03:23 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
In-Reply-To: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <02b801d0c497$f1290ed0$d37b2c70$@icgsec.asia>

Thank you Manal.  I have also added an edit to the last section re
'Completed Community Public Comment Periods'.

All - the latest version is attached and in the Dropbox folder for your
review.

Dropbox link to v3-MI-JC: http://icgsec.asia/1GCUB3w 
Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:27 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <Lynn at LStAmour.org>;
internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3

Thanks Jennifer ..

Thanks Lynn ..
Please find attached and on Dropbox a few remarks marked in track changes ..

Kind Regards
--Manal  

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Jennifer Chung
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:21 PM
To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2

Hi All,

Please find the public comment web page v3 (final section links added,
public comment date inserted) attached and linked below:
Dropbox link to v3: http://icgsec.asia/1RN2v60

All previous versions of this document have been preserved and moved to a
different Dropbox subfolder called 'Web page materials' (CoordinationGroup >
Web page materials): http://icgsec.asia/1MFLRyE 

All the latest versions of all materials for the ICG public comment period
launch is available here for your review (CoordinationGroup > Public
Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

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 Lynn
St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:45 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2

Hello everyone,

just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence. 

Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and
ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.

ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday
24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for
final approval and posting.

Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,

Best,
Lynn


On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I've updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial
work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from
the ICG report in the combined proposal.
> 
> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this 
> by
July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
> 
> I'm hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of 
> incorporating
feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly
tied up with IETF matters next week.
> 
> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
section, that would be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> [1]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl
=0
> 
>
<public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>___________________________________________
____
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34708 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150722/a7de0fdd/attachment.docx>

From jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br  Wed Jul 22 21:09:26 2015
From: jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br (Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:09:26 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] RES:  Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <55AFBA66.8000703@cgi.br>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in><82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com><FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>,<55AFBA66.8000703@cgi.br>
Message-ID: <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FBCB26BE1@URANO01.itamaraty.local>
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From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Thu Jul 23 03:35:08 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:35:08 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
In-Reply-To: <00b801d0c3d1$2d7be5a0$8873b0e0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in><27F871CE-BAD2-4C84-A1A1-8EB27BCA376D@LStAmour.org>
	<00b801d0c3d1$2d7be5a0$8873b0e0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <DE8C1465570B4A09ADF61775CC5ACAA5@WUKPC>

Thanks Lynn and others for the work so far,

Isn't the ICG coming up with recommendations regarding the "combined proposal", too? If that is the case - and I think it should be - then I suggest to make this clear under "Combined Transition Proposal Summary":
<<This combined transition proposal contains the report of the ICG together with the related recommendations and the RFP responses from each of the three operational communities>>

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Jennifer Chung 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 12:20 AM 
To: 'Lynn St.Amour' ; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2 

Hi All,

Please find the public comment web page v3 (final section links added,
public comment date inserted) attached and linked below:
Dropbox link to v3: http://icgsec.asia/1RN2v60

All previous versions of this document have been preserved and moved to a
different Dropbox subfolder called 'Web page materials' (CoordinationGroup >
Web page materials): http://icgsec.asia/1MFLRyE 

All the latest versions of all materials for the ICG public comment period
launch is available here for your review (CoordinationGroup > Public
Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

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 Lynn
St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:45 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2

Hello everyone,

just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence. 

Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and
ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.

ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday
24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for
final approval and posting.

Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,

Best,
Lynn


On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I've updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial
work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from
the ICG report in the combined proposal.
> 
> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this by
July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
> 
> I'm hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of incorporating
feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly
tied up with IETF matters next week.
> 
> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
section, that would be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> [1]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl
=0
> 
>
<public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>___________________________________________
____
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org






_______________________________________________
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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150723/a1ff1b5c/attachment.html>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Thu Jul 23 07:57:36 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:57:36 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
In-Reply-To: <27F871CE-BAD2-4C84-A1A1-8EB27BCA376D@LStAmour.org>
References: <3A7D1FCC-A333-41DD-851E-ABAA0F13FC45@cooperw.in>
	<27F871CE-BAD2-4C84-A1A1-8EB27BCA376D@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <AA1C74C4-75DD-4C7D-B835-148A4F93C1ED@apnic.net>

Thanks Lynn,

I’ve added a set of edits to the Word document, now saved in a new 
file:

   public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC-PW.docx

on the dropbox.


Hope I haven’t collided with anyone else’s editing work.

Regards.

Paul.



On 22 Jul 2015, at 1:44, Lynn St.Amour wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence.
>
> Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) 
> and ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.
>
> ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this 
> Friday 24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it 
> around for final approval and posting.
>
> Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I’ve updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our 
>> discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some 
>> editorial work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived 
>> directly from the ICG report in the combined proposal.
>>
>> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize 
>> this by July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
>>
>> I’m hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of 
>> incorporating feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders 
>> since I will be mostly tied up with IETF matters next week.
>>
>> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the 
>> final section, that would be great.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl=0
>>
>> <public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC-PW.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 48047 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150723/5a863e1e/attachment.docx>

From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Thu Jul 23 16:53:07 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:53:07 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <B4513D7A-FCF9-4F51-8AA8-42AD8F58955E@Internet-Matters.com>

Again, thanks much Manal,

To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the Exec. Summary.  

Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec. summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though, unfortunately).

And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG - Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to ensure they reflect the latest positions?

Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final" drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period timetable of July 31st.

Many thanks,

Lynn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1337344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150723/7cf92bd3/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------


On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Dear All ..
>  
> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..
>  
> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>  
> Dear Manal and All,
>  
> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.
>  
> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 23 16:53:46 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:53:46 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>

Again, thanks much Manal,

To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the Exec. Summary.  

Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec. summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though, unfortunately).

And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG - Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to ensure they reflect the latest positions?

Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final" drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period timetable of July 31st.

Many thanks,

Lynn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1337344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150723/d5053c8d/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------


On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Dear All ..
> 
> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..
> 
> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
> 
> Dear Manal and All,
> 
> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.
> 
> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Jennifer
> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From elise.gerich at icann.org  Thu Jul 23 17:16:35 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:16:35 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
References: <F8BF9397-942D-4C6D-8B28-5631976EE662@cooperw.in>
	<82838F80-F75E-4D51-A5AA-406DA91EBDE7@gmail.com>
	<FDB80244B9E04614B534478BD3AB5E41@WUKPC>
	<D1C40DEF.37199%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<CF7119A4D25245928B9BD73861BBD29D@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>

Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,

You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on
Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to
individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip
to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30
minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).

Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to
discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to
coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.

Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in
Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.

See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
-- Elise 


From:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date:  Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To:  Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com"
<kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc:  "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

> Dear Elise, all,
>  
> as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks
> to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time
> available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an
> individual capacity.
> My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the
> afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd
> really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to
> join.
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> From: Elise Gerich <mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
> To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>  ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ;
> Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
> Wolf-Ulrich,
> We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to
> what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the
> interdependencies of the functions.
> -- Elise 
>  
>  
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
> To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper
> <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>  
>> Kuo-Wei,
>>  
>> I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times
>> in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in
>> order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation.
>> They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is
>> crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the
>> system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
>> Career plan of staff is one element between others.
>> I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff
>> liaison could gide us.
>>  
>> Best regards
>>  
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>  
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> From: Wu Kuo-Wei
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
>> To: Alissa Cooper
>> Cc: ICG Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>  
>> If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the
>> liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
>>  
>>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
>>>  
>>> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a
>>> few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>>>  
>>> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point
>>> out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of
>>> implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would
>>> be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference.
>>> Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
>>  
>> It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate
>> the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input
>> from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term
>> stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the
>> career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status,
>> IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan,
>> and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn
>> IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but
>> ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than
>> SLA, budget,..).
>>  
>> Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my
>> comment.
>>  
>> Thanks.
>>  
>> Kuo Wu
>>  
>>>  
>>> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be
>>> considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My
>>> question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public
>>> comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG?
>>> My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.
>>>  
>>> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s
>>> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I
>>> note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of
>>> the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our
>>> work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.
>>>  
>>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150723/df4935ef/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150723/df4935ef/attachment.p7s>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Fri Jul 24 00:20:49 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:20:49 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Update from CWG on IANA IPR
In-Reply-To: <F7E67D18-6392-4D64-820A-DD86E2240924@vigilsec.com>
References: <024901d0c3ae$92a272f0$b7e758d0$@afilias.info>
	<34C9D5C1-F2AC-47CC-866E-B0F71D0B17AA@cooperw.in>
	<64CFC7A9-E3A7-48D5-8812-CAECF49154A3@gmail.com>
	<F7E67D18-6392-4D64-820A-DD86E2240924@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <46151752-B0EC-4385-A3B2-4E813C957FD3@apnic.net>

On 22 Jul 2015, at 7:33, Russ Housley wrote:
…
>
> To my eyes, this text requires that as part of the implementation the 
> IPR needs to be transferred out of ICANN.  I do not think that a 
> transfer to an affiliate of ICANN (that is, PTI) meets the 
> requirement.

Yes, the CRISP proposal is clear on this and a change would require a 
return to the community consultation, along with a good justification 
for reopening this issue.

I think ICG members have concluded in the proposal assessment, that the 
combination of the Numbers and Protocols proposals would entail a simple 
solution, being the transfer of those intellectual properties to the 
IETF Trust, at the time of implementation.

To be honest I’m not sure what objections could be raised to that 
solution; and I’m also surprised by the estimated legal bill of $40K 
to “stress test” it.    But I guess the result of that process will 
inform me of risks and complexities that escape me at the moment!

Paul.



>
> Russ
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Wu Kuo wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The statement I gave is from the board. The questions asked by Russ 
>> are more complex to answer now based on the final proposal of ICG and 
>> the operator or operators will develop. As I know, some community 
>> like to sign contract ASAP. If the contract signed before PTI, then 
>> the trademark and domain name can stay with ICANN or other solution 
>> which we have to figure the legal and best solution for all. When PTI 
>> is established, trademark and domain name can be transferred to PTI 
>> or other solution(?). Then the community might transfer to PTI or 
>> remains the contract with ICANN which ICANN can not decide alone.
>>
>> If there is only one operator, the situation might be easier. If 
>> there are multiple operators, it could complex the situation as you 
>> all can predict which can not solved by ICANN alone too. We have to 
>> sit down to resolve together.
>>
>> Russ, I am sorry not giving you "firm" answer to your two questions. 
>> But you really raise good questions for all to think about.
>>
>> If we have further solution, I will inform you all ASAP.
>>
>> Kuo Wu
>>
>> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>>
>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月21日 06:37 
>> 寫道：
>>
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>> Date: July 21, 2015 at 2:12:51 PM GMT+2
>>>> To: <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>>> Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>> Reply-To: jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Following on from the Client Committee and CWG meetings on 9 July, 
>>>> the quote below was received. The Client Committee has reviewed 
>>>> this quote and now proposes to instruct Sidley to commence with 
>>>> this work as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that the ICG is moving rapidly towards publication of 
>>>> its work for public comment and, if the CWG is to provide informed 
>>>> and effective input on the “IPR Issue”, we do need Sidley’s 
>>>> input and advice to us as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Thank-you,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan & Lise
>>>>
>>>> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
>>>> Sent: 18 July 2015 09:33
>>>> To: cwg-client at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson; 'Lise Fuhr'; Grace 
>>>> Abuhamad; Marika Konings
>>>> Cc: Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.
>>>> Subject: RE: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> With respect to Item #1 below, we would expect the stress test and 
>>>> assessment of the IPR issue under the three scenarios below would 
>>>> require approximately $35,000-40,000 of legal work.  This would be 
>>>> for our analysis and review and would not include time spent on 
>>>> follow up calls or iterations of the document.
>>>>
>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Sharon
>>>>
>>>> SHARON FLANAGAN
>>>> Partner
>>>>
>>>> Sidley Austin LLP
>>>> +1.415.772.1271
>>>> sflanagan at sidley.com
>>>>
>>>> From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:58 AM
>>>> To: Flanagan, Sharon
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; 
>>>> cwg-client at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>>
>>>> Dear Sharon,
>>>>
>>>> As we talked about during the Client Committee call last Thursday, 
>>>> we have discussed with the CWG Sidley's eventual advice regarding 
>>>> two issues – IPR and a matrix of the bylaws. The CWG agreed to 
>>>> request Sidley to give an estimate of the hours needed in order to 
>>>> perform the two tasks:
>>>>
>>>> 1.      IPR - To conduct a stress-test approach regarding the IANA 
>>>> IPR issue. This includes four aspects:
>>>>
>>>> a.  Sidley should consult with ICANN Legal in order to obtain 
>>>> further insight and background to the IPR issue. This can be done 
>>>> with the involvement of other members of the CWG – like the 
>>>> Client Committee. Furthermore CWG is considering involving other 
>>>> communities in this fact-gathering exercise.
>>>>
>>>> b. There appear to be three possible scenarios. IANA’s IPR 
>>>> either:
>>>> (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust 
>>>> (IETF, mutual trust).
>>>>
>>>> c. What risks exist with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship 
>>>> perspective. These need to be evaluated in view of ICANN's position 
>>>> and the proposal from the other communities to determine what is 
>>>> optimal and/or acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> d. There are 3 trademarks involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers 
>>>> Authority," (ii) "IANA", and (iii) the IANA Logo, which consists of 
>>>> IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
>>>>
>>>> 2.      Matrix of the ICANN bylaws:
>>>>
>>>> Create a matrix to help determine where the bylaws that are needed 
>>>> in relation to the CWG proposal belong.  Identify which bylaws 
>>>> Sidley would suggest that the CWG should draft (be in charge of 
>>>> having drafted), and which bylaws drafted by the CCWG need to be 
>>>> signed off by the CWG. There will be a part of the bylaws that are 
>>>> being prepared by the CCWG that have no direct relationship to the 
>>>> CWG's work and these constitute a third category.
>>>>
>>>> After receiving the quote, the Client Committee will evaluate the 
>>>> estimates of the two tasks and get back to you.
>>>>
>>>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back to 
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Lise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that 
>>>> is privileged or confidential.
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and 
>>>> any attachments and notify us
>>>> immediately.
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Fri Jul 24 01:06:33 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:06:33 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates .. 

Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..

I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...) ..

I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review and provide further guidance ..

Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?

Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Again, thanks much Manal,

To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the Exec. Summary.  

Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec. summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though, unfortunately).

And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG - Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to ensure they reflect the latest positions?

Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final" drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period timetable of July 31st.

Many thanks,

Lynn


From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 24 01:29:34 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:29:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
In-Reply-To: <D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <D1D6EB00.37BEA%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <948118245.1668974.1437701374831.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

I am also interested in the visit, unfortunately I will be arriving late on Thursday the 17th just like Martin.  It  may not work out for me to participate except ICANN travel constituency grants me early arrival date i.e on the 16th. 
I will ask and if granted, would communicated same to you.

Mary Uduma
 


     On Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:17 PM, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org> wrote:
   

 Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,
You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).
Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.  
Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.
See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,-- Elise 

From:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date:  Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To:  Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc:  "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments



Dear Elise, all, as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.
Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich
 From: Elise Gerich Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AMTo: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ;Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments Wolf-Ulrich,We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.-- Elise   From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
 
Kuo-Wei, I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several timesin various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation. They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.Career plan of staff is one element between others.I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff liaison could gide us. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Wu Kuo-WeiSent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PMTo: Alissa CooperCc: ICG Coordination GroupSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment. 
Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道： Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8. Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?
 It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separatethe policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long termstability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for thecareer development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status, IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan, and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than SLA, budget,..). Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop mycomment. Thanks. Kuo Wu 
 Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check. Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification. Alissa   _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
  _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org  _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/492c2488/attachment.html>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Fri Jul 24 02:05:29 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:05:29 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <C52E5A1B-AA58-4001-9B3F-F4598C27466D@apnic.net>

Hi Lynn and all,

I have contributed some edits and saved the document on the Dropbox as 
“combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA-PW.doc”

Also attached here.

Paul.


On 24 Jul 2015, at 2:53, Lynn St.Amour wrote:

> Again, thanks much Manal,
>
> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and 
> made some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this 
> way.  I would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I 
> believe it is a critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may 
> be better suited to the Exec. Summary.
>
> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the 
> Exec. summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I 
> have it wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now 
> though, unfortunately).
>
> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG - 
> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate 
> sections to ensure they reflect the latest positions?
>
> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public 
> web-site no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very 
> near final" drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public 
> comment period timetable of July 31st.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Lynn
>
> [combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA.doc]
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
>> Dear All ..
>>
>> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
>> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time 
>> for necessary iterations ..
>> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status 
>> (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, 
>> in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the 
>> CCWG finalize their work ..
>>
>> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately 
>> reflected ..
>> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>>
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
>> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>>
>> Dear Manal and All,
>>
>> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached 
>> and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version 
>> incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., 
>> and Jari.
>>
>> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Jennifer
>> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA-PW.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1341952 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/f6aaa456/attachment.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 24 03:55:09 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:55:09 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>

Hi All,

Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
the requests from Manal below:

"maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
(for 2014) per area) .."

Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
we want to link to this in the ICG report.

2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
presentation linked here:
https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
envisaged.

Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.

As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

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 Manal
Ismail
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
To: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates .. 

Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
(showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..

I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
..

I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
and provide further guidance ..

Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?

Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
St.Amour
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Again, thanks much Manal,

To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
Exec. Summary.  

Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
unfortunately).

And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
ensure they reflect the latest positions?

Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
timetable of July 31st.

Many thanks,

Lynn

_______________________________________________
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: combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1382912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150723/bd97c118/attachment.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 24 04:02:54 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:02:54 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATE: Q&A matrix for the operational communities'
	proposals v4
Message-ID: <01da01d0c5c5$9efb1a70$dcf14f50$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find v4 of the matrix attached and linked - Dropbox:
http://icgsec.asia/1JBWMq6 

 

I have highlighted entries for your attention in the Names proposal section.
Please let me know if there are edits to be made for this matrix - I note
that there is a placeholder in the ICG report for this matrix which has not
been approved for publication yet.

 

As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

 

Please let me know if there are any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 11:55 PM
To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Q&A matrix for the operational communities' proposals

 

Dear All,

 

Per the open action item the Secretariat has taken, attached and linked
below is the Q&A matrix for all three operational communities' proposals.  I
note that there are questions that are unresolved right now (the document
title should probably change).

 

Matrix v3: http://icgsec.asia/1HF15zD 

 

Please note that I have moved the original matrix v2 from its location in
the 'FAQ' subfolder to the 'Evaluation' subfolder here:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Evaluation 

 

Please let me know if there are any questions or edits that need to be made.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/61254287/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of internally resolved questions-v4.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 19560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/61254287/attachment.xlsx>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Fri Jul 24 06:58:45 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:58:45 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <E3AA05FC-F4F7-400A-89C5-3C8E11FCE20F@gmail.com>

Dear All
Just to inform you that I am actively attend and participate in the work of CCWG and its 3 working parties.
These days we have up to 3 calls per day.
Among other things I am vigilant that the requirements of CWG necessary for transition so as ICG could ensure that the interdependent  accountability issues as indicated in CWG document  are fully met.
I will inform you of the results obtained.
Kavousd 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Jul 2015, at 05:30, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
> Dear All ..
>  
> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..
>  
> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>  
> Dear Manal and All,
>  
> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.
>  
> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/a97b3620/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 24 12:12:44 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:12:44 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal -
	v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC2
Message-ID: <023901d0c60a$0dd26810$29773830$@icgsec.asia>

Hi All,

I have changed the chart requested by Lynn/Manal to this clearer version
instead, please review this latest version v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC2 attached and
linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1VEJx0Q 

As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 11:55 PM
To: 'Manal Ismail' <manal at tra.gov.eg>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <lynn at lstamour.org>;
'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Hi All,

Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
the requests from Manal below:

"maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
(for 2014) per area) .."

Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
we want to link to this in the ICG report.

2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
presentation linked here:
https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
envisaged.

Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.

As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

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 Manal
Ismail
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
To: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates .. 

Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
(showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..

I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
..

I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
and provide further guidance ..

Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?

Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
St.Amour
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Again, thanks much Manal,

To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
Exec. Summary.  

Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
unfortunately).

And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
ensure they reflect the latest positions?

Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
timetable of July 31st.

Many thanks,

Lynn

_______________________________________________
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: combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1378816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/0d5eb0ea/attachment.doc>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Fri Jul 24 12:43:52 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:43:52 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <E3AA05FC-F4F7-400A-89C5-3C8E11FCE20F@gmail.com>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<E3AA05FC-F4F7-400A-89C5-3C8E11FCE20F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B867E042-8415-4417-882D-958ECD69D7C3@LStAmour.org>

Thanks very much Kavouss,  appreciate it is a lot of work, and we sincerely appreciate your diligence.

Will you or the others involved in the CCG or CCWG work have a chance to review this combined document over the next day or two?  If not, we need to find some other volunteers to do so, as they are obviously critical areas.

Very best,
Lynn


On Jul 24, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All
> Just to inform you that I am actively attend and participate in the work of CCWG and its 3 working parties.
> These days we have up to 3 calls per day.
> Among other things I am vigilant that the requirements of CWG necessary for transition so as ICG could ensure that the interdependent  accountability issues as indicated in CWG document  are fully met.
> I will inform you of the results obtained.
> Kavousd 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 17 Jul 2015, at 05:30, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All ..
>> 
>> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
>> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
>> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..
>> 
>> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
>> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
>> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>> 
>> Dear Manal and All,
>> 
>> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.
>> 
>> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
>> 
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Jennifer
>> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul 24 13:29:49 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:29:49 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <55B23DCD.8010200@oracle.com>

Colleagues:

I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer 
stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It 
summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section 
as it seems to end abruptly?

Happy for any thoughts.

Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft 
executive summary to drop box?

I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more 
summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited 
to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language 
could be useful elsewhere...

Joe

On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
> the requests from Manal below:
>
> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
> individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
> (for 2014) per area) .."
>
> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
> ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
> template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
> we want to link to this in the ICG report.
>
> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
> presentation linked here:
> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
> ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
> envisaged.
>
> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
> ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
>
> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
> for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>
> 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 Manal
> Ismail
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
> To: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>
> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
> feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates ..
>
> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
> in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
> ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
> (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
>
> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
> it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
> several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
> ..
>
> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
> and provide further guidance ..
>
> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
> current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
> won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
> comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
> comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
> accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
>
> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
> St.Amour
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>
> Again, thanks much Manal,
>
> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
> some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
> would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
> critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
> Exec. Summary.
>
> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
> wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
> unfortunately).
>
> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
> ensure they reflect the latest positions?
>
> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
> no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
> timetable of July 31st.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/844a100e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Exec summary rev1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 43008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/844a100e/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cover letter - Executive Summary.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 34816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/844a100e/attachment-0001.doc>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Fri Jul 24 13:43:00 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:43:00 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <2DDA1D22-B088-4405-B171-61FE6311C5E6@tislabs.com>


After some discussions with folks about possible clarification and shortening of the words I submitted on 14 July for Section 3 of the combined proposal (currently on page 14), I would like to suggest that the following text replace the current sub-paragraph in total:

The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root Zone Management process currently has three functional roles, i.e., the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the Root Zone Administrator (RZA).  The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 150) states “Post-transition, no authorization for Root Zone change requests will be needed.”, thus the RZA role need not be continued.  However, since there is currently no agreement between the RZM and the IFO organizations for the Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of agreement between the IFO and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process.

Thoughts and comments are, of course, welcome.

Russ M

On Jul 23, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
> the requests from Manal below:



From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 24 14:55:56 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:55:56 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive summary files for your review [was RE:
	Latest version of the combined proposal - v5]
Message-ID: <02bd01d0c620$dad48bc0$907da340$@icgsec.asia>

Hi Joe and All,

 

Both attachments from Joe are available for review in this Dropbox folder
(which also contains all the latest versions of everything you need to
review for the upcoming public comment period).

 

Dropbox folder link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Manal Ismail' <manal at tra.gov.eg>;
'Lynn St.Amour' <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

 

Colleagues:

I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer
stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes
process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to
end abruptly?

Happy for any thoughts.

Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive
summary to drop box?

I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more
summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to
public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could
be useful elsewhere...

Joe

On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:

Hi All,
 
Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
the requests from Manal below:
 
"maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
(for 2014) per area) .."
 
Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
we want to link to this in the ICG report.
 
2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
presentation linked here:
https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
envisaged.
 
Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
 
As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
 
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 Manal
Ismail
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
To: Lynn St.Amour  <mailto:lynn at lstamour.org> <lynn at lstamour.org>;
internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
 
Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates .. 
 
Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
(showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
 
I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
..
 
I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
and provide further guidance ..
 
Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
 
Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
 
Kind Regards
--Manal
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
St.Amour
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
 
Again, thanks much Manal,
 
To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
Exec. Summary.  
 
Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
unfortunately).
 
And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
ensure they reflect the latest positions?
 
Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
timetable of July 31st.
 
Many thanks,
 
Lynn
 
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org> 
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org






_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org> 
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/db68f241/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cover letter - Executive Summary.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/db68f241/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Exec summary rev1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 43008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/db68f241/attachment-0001.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 24 15:00:53 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:00:53 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal v6
Message-ID: <02c801d0c621$8ab32100$a0196300$@icgsec.asia>

Hi Russ and All,

Russ' edit has now been incorporated into v6 attached and linked for your
review - Dropbox v6 link: http://icgsec.asia/1CUwcvt 

Please be aware that there will be a lot of edits coming in around this
time, for clarity's sake - please go to this folder (CoordinationGroup >
Public Comment) for the latest versions of all documents - Dropbox folder
link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Mundy [mailto:mundy at tislabs.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:43 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>;
internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>; Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5


After some discussions with folks about possible clarification and
shortening of the words I submitted on 14 July for Section 3 of the combined
proposal (currently on page 14), I would like to suggest that the following
text replace the current sub-paragraph in total:

The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root
Zone Management process currently has three functional roles, i.e., the IANA
Functions Operator (IFO), the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the Root Zone
Administrator (RZA).  The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 150) states
"Post-transition, no authorization for Root Zone change requests will be
needed.", thus the RZA role need not be continued.  However, since there is
currently no agreement between the RZM and the IFO organizations for the
Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of agreement
between the IFO and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities
of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation
of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone
Management process.

Thoughts and comments are, of course, welcome.

Russ M

On Jul 23, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well 
> as the requests from Manal below:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v6.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1380864 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/cf49501c/attachment.doc>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Fri Jul 24 15:03:47 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:03:47 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <55B23DCD.8010200@oracle.com>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
	<55B23DCD.8010200@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <9783E012-31CF-4728-97AB-2DD6663047BE@LStAmour.org>

Thank you Joe!  

Lynn

On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:29 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Colleagues:
> 
> I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to end abruptly?
> 
> Happy for any thoughts.
> 
> Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive summary to drop box?
> 
> I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could be useful elsewhere...
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
>> 
>> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA
>>  . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
>> the requests from Manal below:
>> 
>> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
>> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
>> individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
>> (for 2014) per area) .."
>> 
>> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
>> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
>> 
>> ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
>> template (
>> http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA
>> ) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
>> we want to link to this in the ICG report.
>> 
>> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
>> presentation linked here:
>> 
>> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
>> 
>> ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
>> envisaged.
>> 
>> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
>> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
>> ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
>> 
>> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
>> for your review is in this Dropbox folder: 
>> http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>  
>> 
>> 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 Manal
>> Ismail
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
>> To: Lynn St.Amour 
>> <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>> 
>> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
>> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
>> feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates .. 
>> 
>> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
>> in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
>> ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
>> (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
>> 
>> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
>> it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
>> several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
>> ..
>> 
>> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
>> and provide further guidance ..
>> 
>> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
>> current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
>> won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
>> comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
>> comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
>> accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
>> 
>> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [
>> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
>> ] On Behalf Of Lynn
>> St.Amour
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
>> To: 
>> internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>> 
>> Again, thanks much Manal,
>> 
>> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
>> some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
>> would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
>> critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
>> Exec. Summary.  
>> 
>> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
>> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
>> wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
>> unfortunately).
>> 
>> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
>> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
>> ensure they reflect the latest positions?
>> 
>> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
>> no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
>> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
>> timetable of July 31st.
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> 
>> 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
> 
> <Exec summary rev1.doc><cover letter - Executive Summary.doc>



From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Fri Jul 24 16:41:46 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:41:46 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <2DDA1D22-B088-4405-B171-61FE6311C5E6@tislabs.com>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
	<2DDA1D22-B088-4405-B171-61FE6311C5E6@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <9FBE6431-8A8E-410A-AED3-7E16B5CB09A3@LStAmour.org>

Hi Russ,

I think this looks good.

Lynn

On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:

> 
> After some discussions with folks about possible clarification and shortening of the words I submitted on 14 July for Section 3 of the combined proposal (currently on page 14), I would like to suggest that the following text replace the current sub-paragraph in total:
> 
> The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root Zone Management process currently has three functional roles, i.e., the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the Root Zone Administrator (RZA).  The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 150) states “Post-transition, no authorization for Root Zone change requests will be needed.”, thus the RZA role need not be continued.  However, since there is currently no agreement between the RZM and the IFO organizations for the Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of agreement between the IFO and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone Management process.
> 
> Thoughts and comments are, of course, welcome.
> 
> Russ M
> 
> On Jul 23, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
>> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
>> the requests from Manal below:
> 



From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Fri Jul 24 16:43:59 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:43:59 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <55B23DCD.8010200@oracle.com>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
	<55B23DCD.8010200@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <A79349CF-1377-44FB-BBEF-78CEEF1E38CE@LStAmour.org>

Thanks again Joe, 

after a quick read, I think this is quite good.  It pulls some of the text from the ICG review section (and it fits well here), so we may need to edit that section a bit.  I will review again later and attempt to add some closing text per your request.

Also hope to see some other reviewers as well.

Best,

Lynn


On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:29 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Colleagues:
> 
> I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to end abruptly?
> 
> Happy for any thoughts.
> 
> Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive summary to drop box?
> 
> I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could be useful elsewhere...
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
>> 
>> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA
>>  . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
>> the requests from Manal below:
>> 
>> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
>> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
>> individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
>> (for 2014) per area) .."
>> 
>> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
>> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
>> 
>> ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
>> template (
>> http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA
>> ) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
>> we want to link to this in the ICG report.
>> 
>> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
>> presentation linked here:
>> 
>> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
>> 
>> ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
>> envisaged.
>> 
>> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
>> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
>> ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
>> 
>> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
>> for your review is in this Dropbox folder: 
>> http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>  
>> 
>> 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 Manal
>> Ismail
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
>> To: Lynn St.Amour 
>> <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>> 
>> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
>> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
>> feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates .. 
>> 
>> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
>> in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
>> ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
>> (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
>> 
>> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
>> it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
>> several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
>> ..
>> 
>> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
>> and provide further guidance ..
>> 
>> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
>> current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
>> won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
>> comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
>> comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
>> accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
>> 
>> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [
>> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
>> ] On Behalf Of Lynn
>> St.Amour
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
>> To: 
>> internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>> 
>> Again, thanks much Manal,
>> 
>> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
>> some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
>> would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
>> critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
>> Exec. Summary.  
>> 
>> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
>> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
>> wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
>> unfortunately).
>> 
>> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
>> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
>> ensure they reflect the latest positions?
>> 
>> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
>> no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
>> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
>> timetable of July 31st.
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> 
>> 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
> 
> <Exec summary rev1.doc><cover letter - Executive Summary.doc>



From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Fri Jul 24 17:10:48 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:10:48 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <A79349CF-1377-44FB-BBEF-78CEEF1E38CE@LStAmour.org>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
	<55B23DCD.8010200@oracle.com>
	<A79349CF-1377-44FB-BBEF-78CEEF1E38CE@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-+B_Ow=avBJLv0pQJTdLC89Pfw1g8-JmJ3Mupyo3C0vYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
I am currently fully involved in CCWG activities to end releasing the
Second Proposal for public comment .
I attend several call per day and fully represent ICG in order that all
issue relating  to CWG Inan Stewardship be correctly addressed
There are some pending issues yet to n be finalized in order that ICG
proposal be sufficientléy clear .
I am travelling to Seoul ,South Korea from 25 July to 03 August
My mobile phone is not operational during this period
As soon as I arrived in Hilton South Korea I will inform Jennifer of the
number to be dialed during this period
Regards
Kavouss

2015-07-24 18:43 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at lstamour.org>:

> Thanks again Joe,
>
> after a quick read, I think this is quite good.  It pulls some of the text
> from the ICG review section (and it fits well here), so we may need to edit
> that section a bit.  I will review again later and attempt to add some
> closing text per your request.
>
> Also hope to see some other reviewers as well.
>
> Best,
>
> Lynn
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:29 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Colleagues:
> >
> > I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer
> stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It
> summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as
> it seems to end abruptly?
> >
> > Happy for any thoughts.
> >
> > Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft
> executive summary to drop box?
> >
> > I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more
> summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to
> public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could
> be useful elsewhere...
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
> >>
> >> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA
> >>  . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
> >> the requests from Manal below:
> >>
> >> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
> >> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the
> proposals,
> >> individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA
> transactions
> >> (for 2014) per area) .."
> >>
> >> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
> >> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
> >>
> >>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
> >>
> >> ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment
> word
> >> template (
> >> http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA
> >> ) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
> >> we want to link to this in the ICG report.
> >>
> >> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
> >> presentation linked here:
> >>
> >>
> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
> >>
> >> ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that
> is
> >> envisaged.
> >>
> >> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this
> file.
> >> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will
> merge the
> >> ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
> >>
> >> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related
> documents
> >> for your review is in this Dropbox folder:
> >> http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 Manal
> >> Ismail
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
> >> To: Lynn St.Amour
> >> <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
> >>
> >> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
> >> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
> >> feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates ..
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly
> assist
> >> in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which
> the
> >> ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
> >> (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
> >>
> >> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals ..
> Although
> >> it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review
> and
> >> several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers,
> ...)
> >> ..
> >>
> >> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would
> review
> >> and provide further guidance ..
> >>
> >> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best)
> reflect the
> >> current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions)
> which
> >> won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for
> public
> >> comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for
> public
> >> comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
> >> accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
> >>
> >> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
> >>
> >> Kind Regards
> >> --Manal
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Internal-cg [
> >> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
> >> ] On Behalf Of Lynn
> >> St.Amour
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
> >> To:
> >> internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
> >>
> >> Again, thanks much Manal,
> >>
> >> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
> >> some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
> >> would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it
> is a
> >> critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited
> to the
> >> Exec. Summary.
> >>
> >> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
> >> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
> >> wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
> >> unfortunately).
> >>
> >> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
> >> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate
> sections to
> >> ensure they reflect the latest positions?
> >>
> >> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public
> web-site
> >> no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
> >> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
> >> timetable of July 31st.
> >>
> >> Many thanks,
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > <Exec summary rev1.doc><cover letter - Executive Summary.doc>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/a1d49865/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Jul 24 19:52:29 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:52:29 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
Message-ID: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>

Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.

Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.

Thanks,
Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: XPL_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_Summary_03e.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1708103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/6e5cc74c/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-webinar-outline-v1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 116800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150724/6e5cc74c/attachment.docx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 24 19:59:23 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:59:23 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <031e01d0c64b$3df270d0$b9d75270$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

Per Alissa, the draft webinar deck and outline have been uploaded to the
Dropbox folder for your review.

Slide deck link: http://icgsec.asia/1GLwJL9 
Online link: http://icgsec.asia/1CVo9yz 
Dropbox folder link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Alissa Cooper
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 3:52 PM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the
public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that
ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the
OCs. We haven't confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon.
In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to
the list.

Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.

Thanks,
Alissa




From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sat Jul 25 16:11:40 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:11:40 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <ac443ad5829a420eb27ce71e51053946@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa ..
I believe it would be helpful if we add the overall diagram, on slide 28, to the ICG report .. What do you and others think?
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:52 PM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven't confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.

Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.

Thanks,
Alissa



From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sat Jul 25 16:14:07 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:14:07 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <B867E042-8415-4417-882D-958ECD69D7C3@LStAmour.org>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<E3AA05FC-F4F7-400A-89C5-3C8E11FCE20F@gmail.com>
	<B867E042-8415-4417-882D-958ECD69D7C3@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <f6a578baee8646639f49cb840d356539@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Mr. Arasteh for your response and for your active participation to the accountability process, with an eye on the CWG requirements ..

Dear All ..
As Lynn mentioned, it would be helpful to know whether we are hopefully pending more reviews ..

Kind Regards
--Manal  

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 2:44 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Thanks very much Kavouss,  appreciate it is a lot of work, and we sincerely appreciate your diligence.

Will you or the others involved in the CCG or CCWG work have a chance to review this combined document over the next day or two?  If not, we need to find some other volunteers to do so, as they are obviously critical areas.

Very best,
Lynn


On Jul 24, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All
> Just to inform you that I am actively attend and participate in the work of CCWG and its 3 working parties.
> These days we have up to 3 calls per day.
> Among other things I am vigilant that the requirements of CWG necessary for transition so as ICG could ensure that the interdependent  accountability issues as indicated in CWG document  are fully met.
> I will inform you of the results obtained.
> Kavousd 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 17 Jul 2015, at 05:30, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All ..
>> 
>> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
>> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
>> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..
>> 
>> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
>> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
>> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>> 
>> Dear Manal and All,
>> 
>> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.
>> 
>> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
>> 
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Jennifer
>> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Sat Jul 25 16:48:18 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:48:18 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal v6
In-Reply-To: <02c801d0c621$8ab32100$a0196300$@icgsec.asia>
References: <02c801d0c621$8ab32100$a0196300$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <4bee63ebe01f47668e7dd6dc2757b30b@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks to all who have provided their comments and to Jennifer for incorporating them as well as inserting the diagram suggested by Lynn ..
Please find attached .. 
I did some edits and suggest, if ok with everyone, adding the overall diagram, on slide 28 of the webinar material, to the ICG report ..

Appreciate saving this version on Dropbox as appropriate .. 

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 5:01 PM
To: 'Russ Mundy'; 'Lynn St.Amour'; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: Manal Ismail
Subject: Combined proposal v6

Hi Russ and All,

Russ' edit has now been incorporated into v6 attached and linked for your review - Dropbox v6 link: http://icgsec.asia/1CUwcvt 

Please be aware that there will be a lot of edits coming in around this time, for clarity's sake - please go to this folder (CoordinationGroup > Public Comment) for the latest versions of all documents - Dropbox folder
link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Mundy [mailto:mundy at tislabs.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:43 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Cc: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>; Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5


After some discussions with folks about possible clarification and
shortening of the words I submitted on 14 July for Section 3 of the combined
proposal (currently on page 14), I would like to suggest that the following
text replace the current sub-paragraph in total:

The ICG notes that, under the current IANA Functions Contract, the DNS Root
Zone Management process currently has three functional roles, i.e., the IANA
Functions Operator (IFO), the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the Root Zone
Administrator (RZA).  The CWG Stewardship proposal (paragraph 150) states
"Post-transition, no authorization for Root Zone change requests will be
needed.", thus the RZA role need not be continued.  However, since there is
currently no agreement between the RZM and the IFO organizations for the
Root Zone Management process, the ICG notes that some form of agreement
between the IFO and RZM that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities
of both parties is essential for the secure, stable and resilient operation
of the Root Zone of the DNS when the NTIA withdraws from the Root Zone
Management process.

Thoughts and comments are, of course, welcome.

Russ M

On Jul 23, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well 
> as the requests from Manal below:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v6-MI.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1386496 bytes
Desc: combined-proposal-v6-MI.doc
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150725/413cfd41/attachment.doc>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Sat Jul 25 20:37:58 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:37:58 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <55B3F3A6.3000805@oracle.com>

On slides 11/12/13 the disappearance of IANA from the slide as an Icon 
may confuse people... Otherwise looks good.

On 7/24/2015 3:52 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
>
> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
>
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150725/d91ddfa7/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sat Jul 25 23:16:45 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:16:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <A79349CF-1377-44FB-BBEF-78CEEF1E38CE@LStAmour.org>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>	<55B23DCD.8010200@oracle.com>
	<A79349CF-1377-44FB-BBEF-78CEEF1E38CE@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <d68921bef55b44fcbf2db44ee4d88a5e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Joe ..
Please find attached a trial for some closing text as well as some suggested edits ..
@Lynn, please feel free to edit or provide alternative text, as you see appropriate ..
Hope you find this useful ..

Kind Regards
--Manal 

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 6:44 PM
To: joseph alhadeff
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Thanks again Joe, 

after a quick read, I think this is quite good.  It pulls some of the text from the ICG review section (and it fits well here), so we may need to edit that section a bit.  I will review again later and attempt to add some closing text per your request.

Also hope to see some other reviewers as well.

Best,

Lynn


On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:29 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Colleagues:
> 
> I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to end abruptly?
> 
> Happy for any thoughts.
> 
> Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive summary to drop box?
> 
> I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could be useful elsewhere...
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
>> 
>> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA
>>  . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as the requests from 
>> Manal below:
>> 
>> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
>> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the 
>> proposals, individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of 
>> IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) .."
>> 
>> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
>> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-
>> finaliz
>> 
>> ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual 
>> assessment word template ( http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA
>> ) on the ICG web site - I can do so if we want to link to this in the 
>> ICG report.
>> 
>> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA 
>> presentation linked here:
>> 
>> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-
>> departm
>> 
>> ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is 
>> that is envisaged.
>> 
>> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
>> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will 
>> merge the ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
>> 
>> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related 
>> documents for your review is in this Dropbox folder:
>> http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>  
>> 
>> 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 Manal
>> Ismail
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
>> To: Lynn St.Amour
>> <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - 
>> v5
>> 
>> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
>> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and 
>> provide feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates ..
>> 
>> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly 
>> assist in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria 
>> against which the ICG assessed the proposals, individually and 
>> collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
>> 
>> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. 
>> Although it is not a substantial change it would still require a 
>> thorough review and several edits throughout the document (ICG 
>> report, sections' headers, ...) ..
>> 
>> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would 
>> review and provide further guidance ..
>> 
>> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) 
>> reflect the current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing 
>> discussions) which won't be the case (accountability proposal 
>> finalized and put out for public comments too) by the time the 
>> combined transition proposal is out for public comment .. Should such 
>> parts be changed to reflect the status of the accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
>> 
>> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [
>> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
>> ] On Behalf Of Lynn
>> St.Amour
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
>> To: 
>> internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - 
>> v5
>> 
>> Again, thanks much Manal,
>> 
>> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and 
>> made some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this 
>> way.  I would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I 
>> believe it is a critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may 
>> be better suited to the Exec. Summary.
>> 
>> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
>> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have 
>> it wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though, 
>> unfortunately).
>> 
>> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG - 
>> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate 
>> sections to ensure they reflect the latest positions?
>> 
>> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public 
>> web-site no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
>> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period 
>> timetable of July 31st.
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> 
>> 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
> 
> <Exec summary rev1.doc><cover letter - Executive Summary.doc>


_______________________________________________
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: Exec summary rev1-MI.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 46592 bytes
Desc: Exec summary rev1-MI.doc
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150725/2d5e8657/attachment.doc>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Jul 26 03:10:10 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:10:10 +0900
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <f6a578baee8646639f49cb840d356539@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<E3AA05FC-F4F7-400A-89C5-3C8E11FCE20F@gmail.com>
	<B867E042-8415-4417-882D-958ECD69D7C3@LStAmour.org>
	<f6a578baee8646639f49cb840d356539@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <70D63F0D-A20F-4834-BBA2-E6302AF4541B@gmail.com>

Dear Manal
Just landedin Seoul
Will send you my comments for Combined proposal v5
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Jul 2015, at 01:14, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Mr. Arasteh for your response and for your active participation to the accountability process, with an eye on the CWG requirements ..
> 
> Dear All ..
> As Lynn mentioned, it would be helpful to know whether we are hopefully pending more reviews ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 2:44 PM
> To: Kavouss Arasteh
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
> 
> Thanks very much Kavouss,  appreciate it is a lot of work, and we sincerely appreciate your diligence.
> 
> Will you or the others involved in the CCG or CCWG work have a chance to review this combined document over the next day or two?  If not, we need to find some other volunteers to do so, as they are obviously critical areas.
> 
> Very best,
> Lynn
> 
> 
>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear All
>> Just to inform you that I am actively attend and participate in the work of CCWG and its 3 working parties.
>> These days we have up to 3 calls per day.
>> Among other things I am vigilant that the requirements of CWG necessary for transition so as ICG could ensure that the interdependent  accountability issues as indicated in CWG document  are fully met.
>> I will inform you of the results obtained.
>> Kavousd 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 17 Jul 2015, at 05:30, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear All ..
>>> 
>>> Please find attached, in track changes, to my best ..
>>> It is far from perfect but I thought to share soonest to allow time for necessary iterations ..
>>> My understanding is that the ICG will reflect the ultimate status (i.e. not the temporary situation), accordingly I tried to highlight, in blue, parts that I believe will need to be revisited after the CCWG finalize their work ..
>>> 
>>> Apologies in advance if any of the points raised is not accurately reflected ..
>>> Looking forward to receiving  your valuable inputs/feedback ..
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> --Manal
>>> 
>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:38 AM
>>> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>>> 
>>> Dear Manal and All,
>>> 
>>> Attached is the latest version of the combined proposal v5 (attached and linked here: http://icgsec.asia/1I4DxJ8 ).  The version incorporates all prior edits and text from Manal, Alissa, Russ M., and Jari.
>>> 
>>> Please feel free to use this version for your continued drafting.
>>> 
>>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Jennifer
>>> <combined-proposal-v5-MI.doc>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Sun Jul 26 03:14:29 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:14:29 +0900
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
In-Reply-To: <01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00c801d0bf78$e269a720$a73cf560$@icgsec.asia>
	<13b4508c7ba24c8caf08947f40a1b46a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<C7AF899D-9BC4-4CC4-8990-A43128470D60@LStAmour.org>
	<6f3441add77e4676bde046e6e6e3391c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<01d001d0c5c4$8b1119c0$a1334d40$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <8582A4E5-C75C-4CB8-82DB-3D19AA858A90@gmail.com>

Dear Jennifer
As I informed Manal ,
I have just landed in Seoul Hilton millennium room 1110
Pls send me the latest version of Combined proposal as I have some comments on Version 5 release two days ago
Kavouss       

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Jul 2015, at 12:55, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
> the requests from Manal below:
> 
> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
> individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
> (for 2014) per area) .."
> 
> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
> ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
> template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
> we want to link to this in the ICG report.
> 
> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
> presentation linked here:
> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
> ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
> envisaged.
> 
> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
> ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
> 
> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
> for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
> 
> 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 Manal
> Ismail
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
> To: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
> 
> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
> feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates .. 
> 
> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
> in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
> ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
> (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
> 
> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
> it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
> several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
> ..
> 
> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
> and provide further guidance ..
> 
> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
> current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
> won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
> comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
> comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
> accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
> 
> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
> St.Amour
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
> 
> Again, thanks much Manal,
> 
> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
> some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
> would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
> critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
> Exec. Summary.  
> 
> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
> wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
> unfortunately).
> 
> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
> ensure they reflect the latest positions?
> 
> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
> no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
> timetable of July 31st.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Lynn
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> <combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Sun Jul 26 03:59:43 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:59:43 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec
	summary rev-1-MI
Message-ID: <040401d0c757$82a97450$87fc5cf0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Kavouss and All,

The latest version of the combined proposal is actually v6-MI attached.  I
have also attached the latest version of the text of the executive summary
as well (rev-1-MI) for your review.

All the latest versions of all documents for the public comment period
launch can also be found in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:14 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>; Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>;
<internal-cg at ianacg.org> <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Dear Jennifer
As I informed Manal ,
I have just landed in Seoul Hilton millennium room 1110 Pls send me the
latest version of Combined proposal as I have some comments on Version 5
release two days ago
Kavouss       

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Jul 2015, at 12:55, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well 
> as the requests from Manal below:
> 
> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the 
> proposals, individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of 
> IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) .."
> 
> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-f
> inaliz ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual 
> assessment word template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web 
> site - I can do so if we want to link to this in the ICG report.
> 
> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA 
> presentation linked here:
> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-d
> epartm ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this 
> is that is envisaged.
> 
> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this
file.
> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will 
> merge the ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
> 
> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related 
> documents for your review is in this Dropbox folder: 
> http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
> 
> 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 
> Manal Ismail
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
> To: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - 
> v5
> 
> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and 
> provide feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period
dates ..
> 
> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly 
> assist in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria 
> against which the ICG assessed the proposals, individually and 
> collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per
area) ..
> 
> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. 
> Although it is not a substantial change it would still require a 
> thorough review and several edits throughout the document (ICG report, 
> sections' headers, ...) ..
> 
> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would 
> review and provide further guidance ..
> 
> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) 
> reflect the current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing 
> discussions) which won't be the case (accountability proposal 
> finalized and put out for public comments too) by the time the 
> combined transition proposal is out for public comment .. Should such 
> parts be changed to reflect the status of the accountability proposal at
the time of the public comment period?
> 
> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - 
> v5
> 
> Again, thanks much Manal,
> 
> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and 
> made some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this 
> way.  I would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I 
> believe it is a critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may 
> be better suited to the Exec. Summary.
> 
> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it 
> wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though, 
> unfortunately).
> 
> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG - 
> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate 
> sections to ensure they reflect the latest positions?
> 
> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public 
> web-site no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near
final"
> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period 
> timetable of July 31st.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Lynn
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> <combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: combined-proposal-v6-MI.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1389568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150725/73c9667c/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Exec summary rev1-MI.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 47104 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150725/73c9667c/attachment-0001.doc>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Sun Jul 26 11:57:16 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:57:16 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <ac443ad5829a420eb27ce71e51053946@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<ac443ad5829a420eb27ce71e51053946@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <772FE264-4DEC-42B9-B3A1-0DA2761AC841@tislabs.com>

Folks,

In response to Manal’s specific question about including slide 28 in the ICG report, I do not think that would be appropriate in it’s current form since it emphasizes oversight and accountability mechanisms but makes no references to the on-going, regular functions performed by IANA for the OCs, e.g., no customer interactions are shown on the slide.  

Overall, the slide deck provides a very good illustration of the ICG & OCs activities over the last year - this is a challenging task and I appreciate the hard work that I’m sure has gone into producing them.  I do have some additional comments on the slide deck which I hope to have consolidated and written up later today.

Russ M

On Jul 25, 2015, at 12:11 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Alissa ..
> I believe it would be helpful if we add the overall diagram, on slide 28, to the ICG report .. What do you and others think?
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:52 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
> 
> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven't confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
> 
> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From alissa at cooperw.in  Sun Jul 26 13:19:12 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:19:12 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec
	summary rev-1-MI
In-Reply-To: <040401d0c757$82a97450$87fc5cf0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <040401d0c757$82a97450$87fc5cf0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <F1602240-BA07-4F93-B06B-865FFAE0995F@cooperw.in>

I started some edits while on an airplane flight. Do not have time to finish but wanted to send them now in case other folks are editing.

Totally agree with Manal’s suggestion to include the combined diagram. I think it will help a lot.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v6-MI-ALC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1382912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150726/f31baeaf/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------

On Jul 26, 2015, at 5:59 AM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear Kavouss and All,
> 
> The latest version of the combined proposal is actually v6-MI attached.  I
> have also attached the latest version of the text of the executive summary
> as well (rev-1-MI) for your review.
> 
> All the latest versions of all documents for the public comment period
> launch can also be found in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:14 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
> Cc: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>; Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>;
> <internal-cg at ianacg.org> <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
> 
> Dear Jennifer
> As I informed Manal ,
> I have just landed in Seoul Hilton millennium room 1110 Pls send me the
> latest version of Combined proposal as I have some comments on Version 5
> release two days ago
> Kavouss       
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2015, at 12:55, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
>> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well 
>> as the requests from Manal below:
>> 
>> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
>> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the 
>> proposals, individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of 
>> IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) .."
>> 
>> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
>> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-f
>> inaliz ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual 
>> assessment word template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web 
>> site - I can do so if we want to link to this in the ICG report.
>> 
>> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA 
>> presentation linked here:
>> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-d
>> epartm ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this 
>> is that is envisaged.
>> 
>> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this
> file.
>> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will 
>> merge the ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
>> 
>> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related 
>> documents for your review is in this Dropbox folder: 
>> http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>> 
>> 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 
>> Manal Ismail
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
>> To: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - 
>> v5
>> 
>> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
>> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and 
>> provide feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period
> dates ..
>> 
>> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly 
>> assist in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria 
>> against which the ICG assessed the proposals, individually and 
>> collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per
> area) ..
>> 
>> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. 
>> Although it is not a substantial change it would still require a 
>> thorough review and several edits throughout the document (ICG report, 
>> sections' headers, ...) ..
>> 
>> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would 
>> review and provide further guidance ..
>> 
>> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) 
>> reflect the current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing 
>> discussions) which won't be the case (accountability proposal 
>> finalized and put out for public comments too) by the time the 
>> combined transition proposal is out for public comment .. Should such 
>> parts be changed to reflect the status of the accountability proposal at
> the time of the public comment period?
>> 
>> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Lynn St.Amour
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - 
>> v5
>> 
>> Again, thanks much Manal,
>> 
>> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and 
>> made some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this 
>> way.  I would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I 
>> believe it is a critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may 
>> be better suited to the Exec. Summary.
>> 
>> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
>> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it 
>> wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though, 
>> unfortunately).
>> 
>> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG - 
>> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate 
>> sections to ensure they reflect the latest positions?
>> 
>> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public 
>> web-site no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near
> final"
>> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period 
>> timetable of July 31st.
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> 
>> Lynn
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> <combined-proposal-v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.doc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> <combined-proposal-v6-MI.doc><Exec summary rev1-MI.doc>_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 26 15:37:15 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:37:15 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and
	Exec	summary rev-1-MI
In-Reply-To: <F1602240-BA07-4F93-B06B-865FFAE0995F@cooperw.in>
References: <040401d0c757$82a97450$87fc5cf0$@icgsec.asia>
	<F1602240-BA07-4F93-B06B-865FFAE0995F@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <9e2dd35cafc0463a9889beaedf8bc637@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa .. Quick responses to your 2 points ..

I agree to maintaining the order mainly because of the tight timeframe and the hassle implied if the order is changed ..

Regarding the sentence "It's also worth noting that editing community consensus proposals would have required reverting back to the relevant operational community seeking their approvals", apologies for not being clear as to what I understood to be Joe's point on our last call .. I believe the point is that if we have decided to edit/streamline the 3 proposals together, we would have needed to seek community approvals before posting the combined proposal for public comments to make sure the consensus proposals are still accurately reflected ..  
Hope I'm able to clarify the point .. By the way I'm also fine with deleting this sentence as it is not the main reason as highlighted by Lynn ..

Safe travels ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 3:19 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI

I started some edits while on an airplane flight. Do not have time to finish but wanted to send them now in case other folks are editing.

Totally agree with Manal's suggestion to include the combined diagram. I think it will help a lot.

Alissa



From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Sun Jul 26 16:49:34 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:49:34 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg]
 =?utf-8?q?Latest_version=3A_Combined_proposal_v6-MI?=
 =?utf-8?q?_and_Exec_summary_rev-1-MI?=
Message-ID: <20150726164532.BE8AC1C1421@smtp.notifymdm.com>

Your explanation is spot on happy to work on wording to try to clarify if helpful...

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
Received: Sunday, 26 Jul 2015, 11:36AM
To: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]
CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI

Thanks Alissa .. Quick responses to your 2 points ..

I agree to maintaining the order mainly because of the tight timeframe and the hassle implied if the order is changed ..

Regarding the sentence "It's also worth noting that editing community consensus proposals would have required reverting back to the relevant operational community seeking their approvals", apologies for not being clear as to what I understood to be Joe's point on our last call .. I believe the point is that if we have decided to edit/streamline the 3 proposals together, we would have needed to seek community approvals before posting the combined proposal for public comments to make sure the consensus proposals are still accurately reflected ..  
Hope I'm able to clarify the point .. By the way I'm also fine with deleting this sentence as it is not the main reason as highlighted by Lynn ..

Safe travels ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 3:19 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI

I started some edits while on an airplane flight. Do not have time to finish but wanted to send them now in case other folks are editing.

Totally agree with Manal's suggestion to include the combined diagram. I think it will help a lot.

Alissa


_______________________________________________
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  Sun Jul 26 22:27:05 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:27:05 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>


On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
> 
> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 

Folks,

Overall, the draft slide deck is a very good presentation.  I think that XPLANE did an excellent job of incorporating a large, diverse amount of information into a very reasonable number of slides.  The set of changes that I'm suggesting here intended are to improve the accuracy and/or clarity of the content of the slide deck.

First, some general suggestions:

- The use of different colors for the different OC and combined proposals is excellent - I think that it would be good to use a similar background shading or a object fill color for the operational community proposals throughout the deck.

- At some point, the deck should mention that IANA operations need to continue to operate stably, securely and resiliently through all transitiion activities.  Although it was not explicitly mentioned, it was inferred in the March 2014 announcement so perhaps slide 5 could add the following in the left column:

"The IANA functions must continue to operate securely, stably and resiliently through entire process of transition."

Secondly, some specific suggestions for individual slides.  I tried to minimize the structural changes to the slides so the suggestions would be straight forward to incorporate - or reject:

- Slide 3:  At the top of the slide, the Operational Communitees should be shown seperately - perhaps with a surrounding box indicating "IANA Customers".   Suggest using "Names Community" (also change Slide 10), "Numbers Community" (also change Slide 19) and "Protocol Parameters Community" (perhaps change Slide 25).

--  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).

-- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:

--- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)

--- Change "Numbers Database" to "Numbers Information" 

--- Change "Protocol Database" to "Protocol Parameters Registries"

-- It's unclear what the three devices at the bottom of the slide represent but I think they are intended to indicate those that use information maintained and provided by IANA.  If this is a correct interpretation, suggest adding text under the devices that says (something like): "Consumbers = Any Internet User"  or something equivalent

- Slide 5: see second general comment above.

- There should be a slide added between the current slide 8 and slide 9 that actually says what the IANA names functions are - the illustrations of current slides 9 and 10 are examples of data but do not show what is involved with maintenance of the DNS Root Zone.  I suggest that text list be derived from the recent ICANN publication "The IANA Functions - An Introduction to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions" from the lists on pages 14, 17 & 18  that is available at:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-functions-15jun15-en.pdf

Other potential sources for the list of functions are the Names proposal paragraph P1.I.A. (1003)  or SSAC reports SAC-067 and SAC-068

- Slide 11 suggest changing "Customers" to "Names Community"

- Slide 15 only lists 6 of the 7 items the CWG said their proposal depended on the CCWG results - item 5 (Separation Process) is not currently listed and should be.

- Slide 19 has an * after "Service level Agreement" and "Review Performance" on the right side of the slide with no explanation.  I would suggest dropping the * or adding some descriptive text.

- Slide 28 (simple change) change "vmetrics" to "metrics".

- Slide 28 provides an excellent overview of providing an overall illustration of the oversight and accountability aspects of the three operational communities.  However, it does not show any of the regular, on-going interactions of the OCs.  It is, in fact, a very different perspective on the IANA functions than is provided in Slide 3.  This could incorrectly infer that the OCs proposals and transition will result in massive changes from how things work today.  To avoid this incorrect inference, I would suggest that the section needs to either have two slides, one to illustrate how the regular, on-going functions are accomplished by replicating Slide 3 or add text to the current slide that says "this illustrates accountability and oversight" and points to Slide 3 as the illustration of the regular, on-going functions.


Thoughts & responses from others are certainly welcome,

Russ M




From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Jul 26 22:45:31 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:45:31 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec
 summary rev-1-MI
In-Reply-To: <20150726164532.BE8AC1C1421@smtp.notifymdm.com>
References: <20150726164532.BE8AC1C1421@smtp.notifymdm.com>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-KZE8yL3owyUJbw2vLwkV9emMJkQLPNbCUS8S7r4+c32Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
Thank you very much for v6 which is quite clearer than version v5 which had
vseveral duplication. Nenetheless I suggested some addition and asked some
clarification s as attached
KA

2015-07-26 18:49 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

> Your explanation is spot on happy to work on wording to try to clarify if
> helpful...
>
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
> Received: Sunday, 26 Jul 2015, 11:36AM
> To: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]
> CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and
> Exec summary rev-1-MI
>
> Thanks Alissa .. Quick responses to your 2 points ..
>
> I agree to maintaining the order mainly because of the tight timeframe and
> the hassle implied if the order is changed ..
>
> Regarding the sentence "It's also worth noting that editing community
> consensus proposals would have required reverting back to the relevant
> operational community seeking their approvals", apologies for not being
> clear as to what I understood to be Joe's point on our last call .. I
> believe the point is that if we have decided to edit/streamline the 3
> proposals together, we would have needed to seek community approvals before
> posting the combined proposal for public comments to make sure the
> consensus proposals are still accurately reflected ..
> Hope I'm able to clarify the point .. By the way I'm also fine with
> deleting this sentence as it is not the main reason as highlighted by Lynn
> ..
>
> Safe travels ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 3:19 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and
> Exec summary rev-1-MI
>
> I started some edits while on an airplane flight. Do not have time to
> finish but wanted to send them now in case other folks are editing.
>
> Totally agree with Manal's suggestion to include the combined diagram. I
> think it will help a lot.
>
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/9519b4b1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v6-MI-ALCv6 REV KA.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1396736 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/9519b4b1/attachment.doc>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sun Jul 26 22:56:01 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:56:01 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
	<328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Dear All ..

Please find attached a first iteration for updating our FAQ ..
I tried, to my best, to update the posted questions and add new ones based on our BA discussions and recent documents ..
Appreciate your feedback ..

Alissa, is this on our agenda for the upcoming call?

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 1:27 PM
To: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Thanks a million Yannis ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 12:39 AM
To: Yannis Li
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Yannis,

Thanks for the quick response on this in the multiple formats.

Russ M

On Jul 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Yannis Li <yannis at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> After verifying with the documents in dropbox, we do not find the exact match of the online published version.
> 
> Therefore attached the latest online published version scrapping from our website ianacg.org.
> 
> They have also been uploaded onto the dropbox under the FAQ folder.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/blq3etzjugl29g2/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.docx?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/562w2q1lw765x41/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.rtf?dl=0
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yannis Li
> ICG Secretariat
> 
> <ICG-FAQ-Published Version.docx><ICG-FAQ-Published Version.rtf>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 26Jul15-MI.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 46278 bytes
Desc: ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 26Jul15-MI.docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150726/d47890fb/attachment.docx>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sun Jul 26 23:58:06 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 01:58:06 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <872D6DC2-ABA3-466E-A665-422BD1AF5C41@frobbit.se>

On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:

> Folks,

I have a few comments on this...

> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).

Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.

> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:

I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and specifically:

> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)

...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service and not the root zone.

Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the slide deck too much.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/f3d9a19a/attachment.sig>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Mon Jul 27 00:17:33 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:17:33 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <872D6DC2-ABA3-466E-A665-422BD1AF5C41@frobbit.se>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
	<872D6DC2-ABA3-466E-A665-422BD1AF5C41@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <6EFC39E8-1C4D-4F9B-BBA1-65B6ADFE2768@apnic.net>

For slide 3, let’s rely on the term “Registry” rather than “Database” or “Info”.  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of structure and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.

For numbers, the label should be “Numbers Registries”, like “Protocol Parameters Registries”.

Personally I also prefer “Names Registries” or “Root Zone Registry” - but I would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.

Paul.




On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>
> I have a few comments on this...
>
>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).
>
> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
>
>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
>
> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and specifically:
>
>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
>
> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service and not the root zone.
>
> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the slide deck too much.
>
> Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3582 bytes
Desc: S/MIME digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/c2ab09d7/attachment.p7s>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Mon Jul 27 01:01:13 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:01:13 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <6A1198E0-C2ED-4CC6-9BFB-901B39DBDB1A@apnic.net>

I agree this presentation looks very good.

A few more comments:

- There is an inconsistency in labels used for “Protocol Parameters”
e.g.
Slide 3: “Protocol Database”
Slide 6: “Protocol”
Slide 28: “Parameters Functions”

- It is good to have the slides covering “What are the IANA functions 
related to X” at the start of each section, but there is an 
inconsistency in the way this information is presented.  Slides 9 and 10 
work well to illustrate the domain of the Names functions and then the 
“flow of control”, but this format is not repeated for Numbers and 
Protocols.

For Numbers I suggest to replace slide 18 with 2 slides: first to 
explain the numbers resources as IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs; and then to show 
the “flow” of allocations of IP and ASN blocks to the RIRs.  For 
Protocol Parameters, Slide 24 could be split and explained in a similar 
way.

I also note that the label referring to “IANA Customers” appears in 
slide 3 and then again in slide 10, but never again after that.  I 
suggest that while the general reference is OK on Slide 3, it should 
become something more specific when it comes to explaining the customers 
of the 3 communities - i.e. TLD Registries, RIRs, and IETF respectively.

- The inclusion of Slides 15 and 16 in the Names section could be 
confusing.  It is there not because CCWG is specific to names, but 
because of the dependency of the CWG proposal on that accountability 
result.  Even though this would be explained by the presenter, I think 
it needs to be clearer in the slides to avoid confusion. For instance, 
with an explanatory slide before current Slide 15.

- I like the use of different colours for the different communities; but 
i observe that the difference is quite subtle and might not be well 
resolved by all viewers and even by all displays/projectors.  I would 
suggest to adjust those colours to make them more distinct (also not to 
use blue for the Protocol Parameters since it does not stand out from 
the overall blue theme of the presentation).

That’s all for now,

Paul.



On 25 Jul 2015, at 5:52, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned 
> for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a 
> design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG 
> and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of 
> the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the 
> deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
>
> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>
> [XPL_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_Summary_03e.pdf]
>
> [public-comment-webinar-outline-v1.docx]
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mundy at tislabs.com  Mon Jul 27 04:18:17 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:18:17 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <872D6DC2-ABA3-466E-A665-422BD1AF5C41@frobbit.se>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
	<872D6DC2-ABA3-466E-A665-422BD1AF5C41@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <E68409B6-7FC6-46D7-9BBF-40129D0B9D7F@tislabs.com>

Glad to get some discussion on the draft slide deck as I expect that they will probably get fairly wide attention.  I’ll respond with to comments inline below.

Russ

On Jul 26, 2015, at 7:58 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
> 
>> Folks,
> 
> I have a few comments on this...
> 
>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).
> 
> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.

One of the really challenging thing about describing all three OCs information and processes on a single slide is that each OC has different information and it’s handled differently - I think the main concern here is the information rather than the processes.  In some case of Names and Numbers, the structures and quantity of structures are pretty much static (the set of Registries for Numbers and the Root Zone content and associated whois information plus some other special zone administration) so referring to what occurs as “Changes” makes sense.  For Protocol Parameters, the structures used are Registries that are created (new ones added) very regularly - the contents of some Registries do change on occasion but having new Registries created/added is much more common than changing contents of existing ones.  Thus, I felt the word “Change” did not properly apply to all three OCs.

> 
>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
> 
> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and specifically:
> 
>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
> 
> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service and not the root zone.
> 
> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the slide deck too much.

I’m not certain that “DNS Root Zone Information” is the best descriptor to use but I strongly object to using “Names Database” because it is easy for those not familiar with DNS or how it works to infer that the “Names Database” has the entire content of the DNS in it and I don’t think that anyone wants to infer that.  The original draft set of slides only has one occurrence of the word “root” which is on a diagram that has no explanatory text - no where in the draft slide deck does it identify that the IANA DNS function are primarily related to the Root Zone.   My intent with the phrase “DNS Root Zone Information” is that it includes both root zone content information and related whois information without trying to describe or differentiate any further detail in the slide deck itself, i.e., trying to find one term that fits all IANA names related “stuff” (& I don’t think it can be ‘registry’).  

I think the important for the slide deck is that we ensure that it’s clear the IANA functions (& all of the associated oversight process) applies to _only_ the DNS Root Zone rather than the entire DNS.  I don’t know how many DNS uninformed/unknowledgable people will be responding (or writing about) the combined proposal based just on what they see in the slides but we need to make it as clear as possible that the Combined Proposal refers predominantly to DNS Root Zone and not the entire DNS.  I’m certainly open to other ways of describing this but the draft slides are not clear about this important aspect.

Russ

> 
>   Patrik



From mundy at tislabs.com  Mon Jul 27 04:58:29 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:58:29 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <6EFC39E8-1C4D-4F9B-BBA1-65B6ADFE2768@apnic.net>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
	<872D6DC2-ABA3-466E-A665-422BD1AF5C41@frobbit.se>
	<6EFC39E8-1C4D-4F9B-BBA1-65B6ADFE2768@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>


On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> For slide 3, let’s rely on the term “Registry” rather than “Database” or “Info”.  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of structure and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.

I agree that Registry is the commonly used term in the Numbers and Protocol Parameters realms but not in the Names realm.

> 
> For numbers, the label should be “Numbers Registries”, like “Protocol Parameters Registries”.

I would be fine with these terms for those two OCs.

> 
> Personally I also prefer “Names Registries” or “Root Zone Registry” - but I would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.

The highly visible DNS information handled and published by IANA is predominantly related to the Root Zone and (as Patrik points out) is generally of two types, i.e., direct Root Zone content related info and whois info.  The whois info could be considered a ‘registry’ but that’s not how it is usually referred to, it’s simply called ‘whois’ information.

The Root Zone content information handled by IANA in filling it’s role in the Root Zone Management process is not 'IANA registry’ information like the Numbers and Protocol Parameters OCs. There are multiple reasons for this not the least of which is that IANA is not the authoritative source of this information in the running DNS.  The root name servers provide the authoritative root zone information for the running DNS and they receive the zone content from Verisign in their role as Root Zone Maintainer.  So in addition to the Root Zone not being like Registries in the Names and Protocol Parameters OCs, the Root Zone in the running DNS is not usually thought of or described as an IANA Registry.

I don’t think that the slide deck should try to differentiate between Root Zone content and whois information but I think we need a single, collective term or phrase that describes both types of information - (probably obvious) I don’t think ‘Root Zone Registries’ is the a viable phrase, I hope we can come up with a better one.

Russ

> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
>> 
>>> Folks,
>> 
>> I have a few comments on this...
>> 
>>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).
>> 
>> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
>> 
>>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
>> 
>> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and specifically:
>> 
>>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
>> 
>> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service and not the root zone.
>> 
>> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the slide deck too much.
>> 
>> Patrik
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/6887501d/attachment.sig>

From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 27 06:11:18 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:11:18 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive summary files for your review [was
	RE:	Latest version of the combined proposal - v5]
In-Reply-To: <02bd01d0c620$dad48bc0$907da340$@icgsec.asia>
References: <02bd01d0c620$dad48bc0$907da340$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <1372806963.3148870.1437977478769.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Jennifer and All,
I wrote comments direct at the dropbox regarding the Executive summary. Pardon me if I did it wrongly.Below are my comments and I hope it can still be taken into consideration.
"The ICG has concluded that the names proposal is complete on the condition that the...................., are concluded"
I am still struggling with this assertion  of conclusion by the ICG as there are some incomplete/outstanding issues in the names proposal.viz 
The CCWG work stream 1 ongoing process mentioned in the section 
The CP-! issue Vs the Framework of Interpretation, RFC 1591 on ccTLDThe placehold regarding the iana.org issue, 
The incomplete SLE, etc
Except I omitted some communications within the ICG, I feel the proposal is not complete without resolutions of these issues.I did suggest or asked if the paragraph could be reworded to "noting" instead of "concluded" since the ICG would still have to make a determination on the completeness of the names proposal after the CCWG work S1 is accepted by the names community. ("At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete")However, if the ICG had concluded that the proposal is complete inspite of the oustandings, the WS1 of the CCWG, kindly clarify.  
My second comment was on the workability section.Does the ICG not consider the layers of revews in the names proposal and those of the other two proposals a workability issue? I do see workability issue here and would request  that this question be included in the matrix of questions. 
"How will the layers or multiple reviews in the names proposal and those in the other two communities' proposals inpact on IFO's service delivery?
Mary Uduma

     On Friday, July 24, 2015 3:56 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
   

 <!--#yiv7686417232 _filtered #yiv7686417232 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7686417232 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7686417232 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv7686417232 #yiv7686417232 p.yiv7686417232MsoNormal, #yiv7686417232 li.yiv7686417232MsoNormal, #yiv7686417232 div.yiv7686417232MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;color:black;}#yiv7686417232 a:link, #yiv7686417232 span.yiv7686417232MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7686417232 a:visited, #yiv7686417232 span.yiv7686417232MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7686417232 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black;}#yiv7686417232 span.yiv7686417232HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;color:black;}#yiv7686417232 span.yiv7686417232EmailStyle19 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:#1F497D;}#yiv7686417232 .yiv7686417232MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv7686417232 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7686417232 div.yiv7686417232WordSection1 {}-->Hi Joe and All,  Both attachments from Joe are available for review in this Dropbox folder (which also contains all the latest versions of everything you need to review for the upcoming public comment period).  Dropbox folder link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2  Please let me know if you have any questions.  Best Regards,  Jennifer  From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Manal Ismail' <manal at tra.gov.eg>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5  Colleagues:

I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to end abruptly?

Happy for any thoughts.

Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive summary to drop box?

I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could be useful elsewhere...

JoeOn 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
Hi All,  Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well asthe requests from Manal below:  "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggestedlink(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions(for 2014) per area) .."  Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization processhttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment wordtemplate (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so ifwe want to link to this in the ICG report.  2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANApresentation linked here:https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-department-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that isenvisaged.  Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge theICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.  As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documentsfor your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2   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 ManalIsmailSent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PMTo: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.orgSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5  Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and providefeedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates ..   Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assistin inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which theICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph(showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..  I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Althoughit is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review andseveral edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)..  I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would reviewand provide further guidance ..  Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect thecurrent status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) whichwon't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for publiccomments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for publiccomment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of theaccountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?  Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..  Kind Regards--Manal  -----Original Message-----From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of LynnSt.AmourSent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PMTo: internal-cg at ianacg.orgSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5  Again, thanks much Manal,  To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and madesome edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  Iwould appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is acritical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to theExec. Summary.    Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have itwrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,unfortunately).  And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections toensure they reflect the latest positions?  Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-siteno later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment periodtimetable of July 31st.  Many thanks,  Lynn  _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/489e2b6a/attachment.html>

From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 27 07:14:50 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
References: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

All,Quite happy with the webinar deck. In addition to the points already raised by others, I wish to suggest the following1. Explanation of the lines, the straight and the broken ones. (New Comers)
2. Few of the acronyms in the diagram be explained for the uninformed. 
3  Further adjustment on slide 28 regarding the numbers and the protocol relationship with the ICANN and IFO. While the Protocol shows connection from IETF pointing  to PTI (Vmetrics), the Numbers (Review Performance) points  to ICANN. There is no  broken line between the Numbers and PTI unlike the Names and the Protocols diagrams.
I am glad to receive clarifications, if I am wrong on my point 3.
By the way, would the deck be adjusted for each audience? When addressing community like the ccTLDs for example.

Great work, folks.

Mary Uduma
 


     On Monday, July 27, 2015 5:59 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
   

 
On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> For slide 3, let’s rely on the term “Registry” rather than “Database” or “Info”.  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of structure and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.

I agree that Registry is the commonly used term in the Numbers and Protocol Parameters realms but not in the Names realm.

> 
> For numbers, the label should be “Numbers Registries”, like “Protocol Parameters Registries”.

I would be fine with these terms for those two OCs.

> 
> Personally I also prefer “Names Registries” or “Root Zone Registry” - but I would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.

The highly visible DNS information handled and published by IANA is predominantly related to the Root Zone and (as Patrik points out) is generally of two types, i.e., direct Root Zone content related info and whois info.  The whois info could be considered a ‘registry’ but that’s not how it is usually referred to, it’s simply called ‘whois’ information.

The Root Zone content information handled by IANA in filling it’s role in the Root Zone Management process is not 'IANA registry’ information like the Numbers and Protocol Parameters OCs. There are multiple reasons for this not the least of which is that IANA is not the authoritative source of this information in the running DNS.  The root name servers provide the authoritative root zone information for the running DNS and they receive the zone content from Verisign in their role as Root Zone Maintainer.  So in addition to the Root Zone not being like Registries in the Names and Protocol Parameters OCs, the Root Zone in the running DNS is not usually thought of or described as an IANA Registry.

I don’t think that the slide deck should try to differentiate between Root Zone content and whois information but I think we need a single, collective term or phrase that describes both types of information - (probably obvious) I don’t think ‘Root Zone Registries’ is the a viable phrase, I hope we can come up with a better one.

Russ

> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
>> 
>>> Folks,
>> 
>> I have a few comments on this...
>> 
>>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).
>> 
>> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
>> 
>>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
>> 
>> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and specifically:
>> 
>>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
>> 
>> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service and not the root zone.
>> 
>> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the slide deck too much.
>> 
>> Patrik
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/202079d4/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Mon Jul 27 09:29:31 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:29:31 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
	<328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <ecc4d7c6fdbb4a7b951ec420dfff9815@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Dear all ..
I just found out that I wrote wrong dates for the public comment period mentioned in questions 22 & 26 .. Things look different in the morning :) !!
Apologies for the mistake .. Will make sure to have it fixed in the following iteration, after receiving your feedback ..

Should we add a question about the final overall proposed model and provide the diagram on slide 28 of the webinar deck as an answer, of course after addressing issues raised by ICG colleagues? (I'm still trying to catch up with the webinar slide deck discussion) ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Manal Ismail 
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:56 AM
To: Manal Ismail; Russ Mundy; Yannis Li
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Dear All ..

Please find attached a first iteration for updating our FAQ ..
I tried, to my best, to update the posted questions and add new ones based on our BA discussions and recent documents ..
Appreciate your feedback ..

Alissa, is this on our agenda for the upcoming call?

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 1:27 PM
To: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Thanks a million Yannis ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 12:39 AM
To: Yannis Li
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Yannis,

Thanks for the quick response on this in the multiple formats.

Russ M

On Jul 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Yannis Li <yannis at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> After verifying with the documents in dropbox, we do not find the exact match of the online published version.
> 
> Therefore attached the latest online published version scrapping from our website ianacg.org.
> 
> They have also been uploaded onto the dropbox under the FAQ folder.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/blq3etzjugl29g2/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.docx?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/562w2q1lw765x41/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.rtf?dl=0
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yannis Li
> ICG Secretariat
> 
> <ICG-FAQ-Published Version.docx><ICG-FAQ-Published Version.rtf>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Mon Jul 27 09:29:26 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:29:26 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec
 summary rev-1-MI
In-Reply-To: <20150726164532.BE8AC1C1421@smtp.notifymdm.com>
References: <20150726164532.BE8AC1C1421@smtp.notifymdm.com>
Message-ID: <d79d95904d92471f815a39a69f18a6af@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Joe for your confirmation ..
If we're to keep the text, I think it would be helpful if you work on clearer wording ..

Kind Regards
--Manal
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:50 PM
To: alissa at cooperw.in; jen at icgsec.asia; Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI

Your explanation is spot on happy to work on wording to try to clarify if helpful...

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
Received: Sunday, 26 Jul 2015, 11:36AM
To: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]
CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI

Thanks Alissa .. Quick responses to your 2 points ..

I agree to maintaining the order mainly because of the tight timeframe and the hassle implied if the order is changed ..

Regarding the sentence "It's also worth noting that editing community consensus proposals would have required reverting back to the relevant operational community seeking their approvals", apologies for not being clear as to what I understood to be Joe's point on our last call .. I believe the point is that if we have decided to edit/streamline the 3 proposals together, we would have needed to seek community approvals before posting the combined proposal for public comments to make sure the consensus proposals are still accurately reflected ..  
Hope I'm able to clarify the point .. By the way I'm also fine with deleting this sentence as it is not the main reason as highlighted by Lynn ..

Safe travels ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 3:19 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI

I started some edits while on an airplane flight. Do not have time to finish but wanted to send them now in case other folks are editing.

Totally agree with Manal's suggestion to include the combined diagram. I think it will help a lot.

Alissa


_______________________________________________
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 Jul 27 15:48:38 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:48:38 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec
	summary rev-1-MI
In-Reply-To: <d79d95904d92471f815a39a69f18a6af@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <20150726164532.BE8AC1C1421@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<d79d95904d92471f815a39a69f18a6af@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <A686C2A8-695C-468E-A55D-CDF69953B9F7@cooperw.in>

Ok, I am editing right now and will try to work this back in.

On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Joe for your confirmation ..
> If we're to keep the text, I think it would be helpful if you work on clearer wording ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:50 PM
> To: alissa at cooperw.in; jen at icgsec.asia; Manal Ismail
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI
> 
> Your explanation is spot on happy to work on wording to try to clarify if helpful...
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
> Received: Sunday, 26 Jul 2015, 11:36AM
> To: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]
> CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI
> 
> Thanks Alissa .. Quick responses to your 2 points ..
> 
> I agree to maintaining the order mainly because of the tight timeframe and the hassle implied if the order is changed ..
> 
> Regarding the sentence "It's also worth noting that editing community consensus proposals would have required reverting back to the relevant operational community seeking their approvals", apologies for not being clear as to what I understood to be Joe's point on our last call .. I believe the point is that if we have decided to edit/streamline the 3 proposals together, we would have needed to seek community approvals before posting the combined proposal for public comments to make sure the consensus proposals are still accurately reflected ..  
> Hope I'm able to clarify the point .. By the way I'm also fine with deleting this sentence as it is not the main reason as highlighted by Lynn ..
> 
> Safe travels ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 3:19 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI
> 
> I started some edits while on an airplane flight. Do not have time to finish but wanted to send them now in case other folks are editing.
> 
> Totally agree with Manal's suggestion to include the combined diagram. I think it will help a lot.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 27 16:05:40 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:05:40 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec
 summary rev-1-MI
In-Reply-To: <A686C2A8-695C-468E-A55D-CDF69953B9F7@cooperw.in>
References: <20150726164532.BE8AC1C1421@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<d79d95904d92471f815a39a69f18a6af@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<A686C2A8-695C-468E-A55D-CDF69953B9F7@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <55B656D4.7060608@oracle.com>

i can get to that in about 3 hours...

On 7/27/2015 11:48 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Manal Ismail<manal at tra.gov.eg>  wrote:



From elise.gerich at icann.org  Mon Jul 27 16:53:38 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:53:38 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
	<1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D1DBAEE2.37E04%elise.gerich@icann.org>

All,

Slide 13 states that the mission of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) is
³Established to perform the operational responsibilities previously
performed by the U.S. Government, ensure continues satisfactory performance
of the IANA naming function."

One of the operational responsibilities of NTIA today is to authorize
changes to the root zone.  It was my understanding from the CWG proposal
that the ³authorization² responsibility of root zone changes would go away.
Is this slide implying that the CSC will have an operational role
authorizing root zone changes?

Regards,
-- Elise 


From:  Internal-cg <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org> on behalf of Mary Uduma
<mnuduma at yahoo.com>
Reply-To:  Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
Date:  Monday, July 27, 2015 at 12:14 AM
To:  Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
Cc:  IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

> All,
> Quite happy with the webinar deck. In addition to the points already raised by
> others, I wish to suggest the following
> 1. Explanation of the lines, the straight and the broken ones. (New Comers)
> 2. Few of the acronyms in the diagram be explained for the uninformed.
> 3  Further adjustment on slide 28 regarding the numbers and the protocol
> relationship with the ICANN and IFO. While the Protocol shows connection from
> IETF pointing  to PTI (Vmetrics), the Numbers (Review Performance) points  to
> ICANN. There is no  broken line between the Numbers and PTI unlike the Names
> and the Protocols diagrams.
> I am glad to receive clarifications, if I am wrong on my point 3.
> 
> By the way, would the deck be adjusted for each audience? When addressing
> community like the ccTLDs for example.
> 
> Great work, folks.
> 
> Mary Uduma
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 27, 2015 5:59 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> 
>> > For slide 3, let¹s rely on the term ³Registry² rather than ³Database² or
>> ³Info².  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of structure
>> and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.
> 
> I agree that Registry is the commonly used term in the Numbers and Protocol
> Parameters realms but not in the Names realm.
> 
>> > 
>> > For numbers, the label should be ³Numbers Registries², like ³Protocol
>> Parameters Registries².
> 
> I would be fine with these terms for those two OCs.
> 
>> > 
>> > Personally I also prefer ³Names Registries² or ³Root Zone Registry² - but I
>> would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.
> 
> The highly visible DNS information handled and published by IANA is
> predominantly related to the Root Zone and (as Patrik points out) is generally
> of two types, i.e., direct Root Zone content related info and whois info.  The
> whois info could be considered a Œregistry¹ but that¹s not how it is usually
> referred to, it¹s simply called Œwhois¹ information.
> 
> The Root Zone content information handled by IANA in filling it¹s role in the
> Root Zone Management process is not 'IANA registry¹ information like the
> Numbers and Protocol Parameters OCs. There are multiple reasons for this not
> the least of which is that IANA is not the authoritative source of this
> information in the running DNS.  The root name servers provide the
> authoritative root zone information for the running DNS and they receive the
> zone content from Verisign in their role as Root Zone Maintainer.  So in
> addition to the Root Zone not being like Registries in the Names and Protocol
> Parameters OCs, the Root Zone in the running DNS is not usually thought of or
> described as an IANA Registry.
> 
> I don¹t think that the slide deck should try to differentiate between Root
> Zone content and whois information but I think we need a single, collective
> term or phrase that describes both types of information - (probably obvious) I
> don¹t think ŒRoot Zone Registries¹ is the a viable phrase, I hope we can come
> up with a better one.
> 
> Russ 
> 
> 
>> > 
>> > Paul.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>> >> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
>>> >> 
>>>> >>> Folks,
>>> >> 
>>> >> I have a few comments on this...
>>> >> 
>>>> >>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not
>>>> all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change
>>>> Slide 10).
>>> >> 
>>> >> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply
>>> changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are
>>> unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
>>> >> 
>>>> >>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in
>>>> databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This
>>>> is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other
>>>> OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".
>>>> I suggest the following renaming:
>>> >> 
>>> >> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and
>>> specifically:
>>> >> 
>>>> >>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide
10)
>>> >> 
>>> >> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests
>>> related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is
>>> correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service
>>> and not the root zone.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself
>>> but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the
>>> slide deck too much.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Patrik
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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  <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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/5af8de00/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/5af8de00/attachment.p7s>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul 27 18:08:33 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:08:33 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec
	summary rev-1-MI
In-Reply-To: <A686C2A8-695C-468E-A55D-CDF69953B9F7@cooperw.in>
References: <20150726164532.BE8AC1C1421@smtp.notifymdm.com>
	<d79d95904d92471f815a39a69f18a6af@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<A686C2A8-695C-468E-A55D-CDF69953B9F7@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <EDF11996-B7F2-4049-8B62-C38A79CF850C@cooperw.in>

Attached are the rest of my proposed edits. I tried to respond to the questions and comments others had inserted. 

I’d like to freeze the editing on this 24 hours before our call, which would be July 28 at 5:00 UTC, so if you are planning on editing please do so before then. Jennifer will produce a clean version for our review on the call.

Thanks,
Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v6-MI-KA-ALC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1619456 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/617a0933/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------

On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Ok, I am editing right now and will try to work this back in.
> 
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Joe for your confirmation ..
>> If we're to keep the text, I think it would be helpful if you work on clearer wording ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:50 PM
>> To: alissa at cooperw.in; jen at icgsec.asia; Manal Ismail
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI
>> 
>> Your explanation is spot on happy to work on wording to try to clarify if helpful...
>> 
>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
>> Received: Sunday, 26 Jul 2015, 11:36AM
>> To: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]; Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]
>> CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI
>> 
>> Thanks Alissa .. Quick responses to your 2 points ..
>> 
>> I agree to maintaining the order mainly because of the tight timeframe and the hassle implied if the order is changed ..
>> 
>> Regarding the sentence "It's also worth noting that editing community consensus proposals would have required reverting back to the relevant operational community seeking their approvals", apologies for not being clear as to what I understood to be Joe's point on our last call .. I believe the point is that if we have decided to edit/streamline the 3 proposals together, we would have needed to seek community approvals before posting the combined proposal for public comments to make sure the consensus proposals are still accurately reflected ..  
>> Hope I'm able to clarify the point .. By the way I'm also fine with deleting this sentence as it is not the main reason as highlighted by Lynn ..
>> 
>> Safe travels ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 3:19 PM
>> To: Jennifer Chung
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version: Combined proposal v6-MI and Exec summary rev-1-MI
>> 
>> I started some edits while on an airplane flight. Do not have time to finish but wanted to send them now in case other folks are editing.
>> 
>> Totally agree with Manal's suggestion to include the combined diagram. I think it will help a lot.
>> 
>> 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  Mon Jul 27 19:38:15 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:38:15 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive summary files for your review [was
	RE:	Latest version of the combined proposal - v5]
In-Reply-To: <1372806963.3148870.1437977478769.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <02bd01d0c620$dad48bc0$907da340$@icgsec.asia>
	<1372806963.3148870.1437977478769.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3ED209F9-8F5B-4C95-8E95-29A58B209A92@cooperw.in>

Mary, all,

I’ve done some editing on the executive summary. Most of it is editorial but one piece that struck me as missing was a summary of the proposals themselves. I took the summary text from Part 0 and tried to shrink it further and added it here.

Per Manal’s comments re comment process and timeline: I don’t think either of those belong in the executive summary, nor in the ICG report. The public comment process instructions will all be on the public comment web site and I think it’s useful to maintain the separation between the substantive content of the document and the instructions and extra material relating to the public comment process. As for the timeline information, we have communicated separately about that to NTIA and the public, so I don’t see a need to re-hash it in the proposal or the executive summary. Readers should be focusing on the content of the document and the timeline material was primarily for the purpose of NTIA’s decision regarding the contract extension, which is a separate issue.

Responses to Mary’s points are below.

On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jennifer and All,
> 
> I wrote comments direct at the dropbox regarding the Executive summary. Pardon me if I did it wrongly.
> Below are my comments and I hope it can still be taken into consideration.
> 
> "The ICG has concluded that the names proposal is complete
> on the condition that the...................., are concluded"
> 
> I am still struggling with this assertion  of conclusion by the ICG as there are some incomplete/outstanding issues in the names proposal.viz 
> The CCWG work stream 1 ongoing process mentioned in the section 

I thought we concluded this on the last call, just as it is in the document now — that we only consider the names proposal complete pending the completion of CCWG Workstream 1.

> The CP-! issue Vs the Framework of Interpretation, RFC 1591 on ccTLD

I thought we resolved this on the last call given that Keith raised this issue and seemed satisfied with the result.

> The placehold regarding the iana.org issue, 

This is an implementation issue and clearly labeled as such in the proposal. We cannot expect all implementation issues to be finished before we consider the proposal complete, otherwise we will never finish. Many of them cannot be finished until it is known whether the proposal is accepted by the USG (precisely why it is called a “proposal” I think).

> The incomplete SLE, etc

This is also an implementation issue. All three of the communities are working on their service level agreements, but none of these are gating on the proposal going froward.

> Except I omitted some communications within the ICG, I feel the proposal is not complete without resolutions of these issues.
> I did suggest or asked if the paragraph could be reworded to "noting" instead of "concluded" since the ICG would still have to make a determination on the completeness of the names proposal after the CCWG work S1 is accepted by the names community. ("At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete”)

I have made this edit in the attached.

> However, if the ICG had concluded that the proposal is complete inspite of the oustandings, the WS1 of the CCWG, kindly clarify.  

I thought this is what we concluded on the last call.

> My second comment was on the workability section.
> Does the ICG not consider the layers of revews in the names proposal and those of the other two proposals a workability issue? I do see workability issue here and would request  that this question be included in the matrix of questions. 
> "How will the layers or multiple reviews in the names proposal and those in the other two communities' proposals inpact on IFO's service delivery?

I thought we also concluded this on the last call, namely that the IANA department is already subject to multiple reviews from the different communities, so the proposed combination of reviews is something that the department is already accustomed to handling. I would expect as well that the division of labor within the department is such that handling the reviews is manageable (e.g., at the IETF the protocol parameters staff are the folks involved in the performance reviews and reporting and I wouldn’t expect them to also be involved in the reviews for the other functions if they do not actually work on the other functions).

Thanks,
Alissa


> 
> Mary Uduma
> 
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 3:56 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Joe and All,
>  
> Both attachments from Joe are available for review in this Dropbox folder (which also contains all the latest versions of everything you need to review for the upcoming public comment period).
>  
> Dropbox folder link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
>  
> From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:30 AM
> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Manal Ismail' <manal at tra.gov.eg>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>  
> Colleagues:
> 
> I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to end abruptly?
> 
> Happy for any thoughts.
> 
> Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive summary to drop box?
> 
> I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could be useful elsewhere...
> 
> Joe
> On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
> Hi All,
>   
> Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
> http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
> the requests from Manal below:
>   
> "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
> link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
> individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
> (for 2014) per area) .."
>   
> Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
> 1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
> ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
> template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
> we want to link to this in the ICG report.
>   
> 2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
> presentation linked here:
> https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
> ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
> envisaged.
>   
> Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
> Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
> ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
>   
> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
> for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
>   
> 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 Manal
> Ismail
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
> To: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>   
> Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
> Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
> feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates .. 
>   
> Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
> in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
> ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
> (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
>   
> I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
> it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
> several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
> ..
>   
> I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
> and provide further guidance ..
>   
> Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
> current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
> won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
> comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
> comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
> accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
>   
> Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
>   
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>   
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
> St.Amour
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>   
> Again, thanks much Manal,
>   
> To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
> some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
> would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
> critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
> Exec. Summary.  
>   
> Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
> summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
> wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
> unfortunately).
>   
> And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
> Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
> ensure they reflect the latest positions?
>   
> Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
> no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
> drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
> timetable of July 31st.
>   
> Many thanks,
>   
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/e0ea2da9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Exec summary rev1-MI-ALC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 56320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/e0ea2da9/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/e0ea2da9/attachment-0001.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Jul 27 20:09:16 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:09:16 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
In-Reply-To: <02b801d0c497$f1290ed0$d37b2c70$@icgsec.asia>
References: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<02b801d0c497$f1290ed0$d37b2c70$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <40EA85DD-57A2-4AB2-825B-7C75937316F3@cooperw.in>

I have a suggestion for how to proceed with this: I think we should focus on finalizing the executive summary for the proposal, and then just use the executive summary text for the Development Process and Proposal Summary sections of the public comment web site. That way we don’t need to duplicate efforts editing both documents, at least for those sections.

I’ve done a bit of editing in the attached, mostly editorial changes.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC-PW-ALC.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 48926 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/9102aa1d/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

On Jul 22, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Thank you Manal.  I have also added an edit to the last section re
> 'Completed Community Public Comment Periods'.
> 
> All - the latest version is attached and in the Dropbox folder for your
> review.
> 
> Dropbox link to v3-MI-JC: http://icgsec.asia/1GCUB3w 
> Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:27 AM
> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <Lynn at LStAmour.org>;
> internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
> 
> Thanks Jennifer ..
> 
> Thanks Lynn ..
> Please find attached and on Dropbox a few remarks marked in track changes ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Jennifer Chung
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:21 PM
> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Please find the public comment web page v3 (final section links added,
> public comment date inserted) attached and linked below:
> Dropbox link to v3: http://icgsec.asia/1RN2v60
> 
> All previous versions of this document have been preserved and moved to a
> different Dropbox subfolder called 'Web page materials' (CoordinationGroup >
> Web page materials): http://icgsec.asia/1MFLRyE 
> 
> All the latest versions of all materials for the ICG public comment period
> launch is available here for your review (CoordinationGroup > Public
> Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
> 
> 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 Lynn
> St.Amour
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:45 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence. 
> 
> Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and
> ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.
> 
> ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday
> 24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for
> final approval and posting.
> 
> Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I've updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
> discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial
> work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from
> the ICG report in the combined proposal.
>> 
>> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this 
>> by
> July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
>> 
>> I'm hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of 
>> incorporating
> feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly
> tied up with IETF matters next week.
>> 
>> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
> section, that would be great.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> [1]
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl
> =0
>> 
>> 
> <public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>___________________________________________
> ____
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> <public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 27 21:54:53 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:54:53 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
In-Reply-To: <40EA85DD-57A2-4AB2-825B-7C75937316F3@cooperw.in>
References: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<02b801d0c497$f1290ed0$d37b2c70$@icgsec.asia>
	<40EA85DD-57A2-4AB2-825B-7C75937316F3@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <c6119917a7d74e00b8f273331b0b09be@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Agree ..
Kind Regards
--Manal  

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 10:09 PM
To: Jennifer Chung
Cc: Manal Ismail; Lynn St.Amour; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3

I have a suggestion for how to proceed with this: I think we should focus on finalizing the executive summary for the proposal, and then just use the executive summary text for the Development Process and Proposal Summary sections of the public comment web site. That way we don't need to duplicate efforts editing both documents, at least for those sections.

I've done a bit of editing in the attached, mostly editorial changes.



From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Mon Jul 27 22:01:46 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:01:46 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive summary files for your review [was RE:
 Latest version of the combined proposal - v5]
In-Reply-To: <3ED209F9-8F5B-4C95-8E95-29A58B209A92@cooperw.in>
References: <02bd01d0c620$dad48bc0$907da340$@icgsec.asia>
	<1372806963.3148870.1437977478769.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<3ED209F9-8F5B-4C95-8E95-29A58B209A92@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <55B6AA4A.5010309@oracle.com>

colleagues:

The executive summary was a cut and past of sections of the document; I 
was very concerned that all topics in the executive summary have been 
sourced from the document. If we make changes in the Executive Summary 
we should make sure that the underlying document reflects those changes 
as well.

As to completeness we agrees that  if the Workstream 1 contingencies are 
carried out it would be considered complete.  Recall that they have 
provided all the elements requested - in theory complete, but not final 
because a number are subject to consistencies.

Joe

On 7/27/2015 3:38 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Mary, all,
>
> I’ve done some editing on the executive summary. Most of it is 
> editorial but one piece that struck me as missing was a summary of the 
> proposals themselves. I took the summary text from Part 0 and tried to 
> shrink it further and added it here.
>
> Per Manal’s comments re comment process and timeline: I don’t think 
> either of those belong in the executive summary, nor in the ICG 
> report. The public comment process instructions will all be on the 
> public comment web site and I think it’s useful to maintain the 
> separation between the substantive content of the document and the 
> instructions and extra material relating to the public comment 
> process. As for the timeline information, we have communicated 
> separately about that to NTIA and the public, so I don’t see a need to 
> re-hash it in the proposal or the executive summary. Readers should be 
> focusing on the content of the document and the timeline material was 
> primarily for the purpose of NTIA’s decision regarding the contract 
> extension, which is a separate issue.
>
> Responses to Mary’s points are below.
>
> On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> Jennifer and All,
>>
>> I wrote comments direct at the dropbox regarding the Executive 
>> summary. Pardon me if I did it wrongly.
>> Below are my comments and I hope it can still be taken into 
>> consideration.
>>
>> "The ICG has concluded that the names proposal is complete
>> on the condition that the...................., are concluded"
>>
>> I am still struggling with this assertion  of conclusion by the ICG 
>> as there are some incomplete/outstanding issues in the names proposal.viz
>> The CCWG work stream 1 ongoing process mentioned in the section
>
> I thought we concluded this on the last call, just as it is in the 
> document now — that we only consider the names proposal complete 
> pending the completion of CCWG Workstream 1.
>
>> The CP-! issue Vs the Framework of Interpretation, RFC 1591 on ccTLD
>
> I thought we resolved this on the last call given that Keith raised 
> this issue and seemed satisfied with the result.
>
>> The placehold regarding theiana.org <http://iana.org/>issue,
>
> This is an implementation issue and clearly labeled as such in the 
> proposal. We cannot expect all implementation issues to be finished 
> before we consider the proposal complete, otherwise we will never 
> finish. Many of them cannot be finished until it is known whether the 
> proposal is accepted by the USG (precisely why it is called a 
> “proposal” I think).
>
>> The incomplete SLE, etc
>
> This is also an implementation issue. All three of the communities are 
> working on their service level agreements, but none of these are 
> gating on the proposal going froward.
>
>> Except I omitted some communications within the ICG, I feel the 
>> proposal is not complete without resolutions of these issues.
>> I did suggest or asked if the paragraph could be reworded to "noting" 
>> instead of "concluded" since the ICG would still have to make a 
>> determination on the completeness of the names proposal after the 
>> CCWG work S1 is accepted by the names community. ("*At that point the 
>> ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the 
>> names proposal to be complete*”)
>
> I have made this edit in the attached.
>
>> However, if the ICG had concluded that the proposal is complete 
>> inspite of the oustandings, the WS1 of the CCWG, kindly clarify.
>
> I thought this is what we concluded on the last call.
>
>> My second comment was on the workability section.
>> Does the ICG not consider the layers of revews in the names proposal 
>> and those of the other two proposals a workability issue? I do see 
>> workability issue here and would request  that this question be 
>> included in the matrix of questions.
>> "How will the layers or multiple reviews in the names proposal and 
>> those in the other two communities' proposals inpact on IFO's service 
>> delivery?
>
> I thought we also concluded this on the last call, namely that the 
> IANA department is already subject to multiple reviews from the 
> different communities, so the proposed combination of reviews is 
> something that the department is already accustomed to handling. I 
> would expect as well that the division of labor within the department 
> is such that handling the reviews is manageable (e.g., at the IETF the 
> protocol parameters staff are the folks involved in the performance 
> reviews and reporting and I wouldn’t expect them to also be involved 
> in the reviews for the other functions if they do not actually work on 
> the other functions).
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> =
>
>
>
>>
>> Mary Uduma
>>
>> On Friday, July 24, 2015 3:56 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia 
>> <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Joe and All,
>> Both attachments from Joe are available for review in this Dropbox 
>> folder (which also contains all the latest versions of everything you 
>> need to review for the upcoming public comment period).
>> Dropbox folder link:http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>> Best Regards,
>> Jennifer
>> *From:*joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
>> *Sent:*Friday, July 24, 2015 9:30 AM
>> *To:*Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>; 
>> 'Manal Ismail' <manal at tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>>; 'Lynn 
>> St.Amour' <lynn at lstamour.org 
>> <mailto:lynn at lstamour.org>>;internal-cg at ianacg.org 
>> <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> *Subject:*Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>> Colleagues:
>>
>> I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly 
>> longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  
>> It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing 
>> section as it seems to end abruptly?
>>
>> Happy for any thoughts.
>>
>> Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft 
>> executive summary to drop box?
>>
>> I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more 
>> summarized version, but think that the short version may be best 
>> suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any 
>> language could be useful elsewhere...
>>
>> Joe
>> On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
>>
>>     Hi All,
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:
>>
>>     http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA  . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as
>>
>>     the requests from Manal below:
>>
>>        
>>
>>     "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested
>>
>>     link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,
>>
>>     individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions
>>
>>     (for 2014) per area) .."
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:
>>
>>     1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process
>>
>>     https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz
>>
>>     ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word
>>
>>     template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so if
>>
>>     we want to link to this in the ICG report.
>>
>>        
>>
>>     2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA
>>
>>     presentation linked here:
>>
>>     https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm
>>
>>     ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is
>>
>>     envisaged.
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.
>>
>>     Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the
>>
>>     ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.
>>
>>        
>>
>>     As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents
>>
>>     for your review is in this Dropbox folder:http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2  
>>
>>        
>>
>>     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 Manal
>>
>>     Ismail
>>
>>     Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM
>>
>>     To: Lynn St.Amour<lynn at lstamour.org>  <mailto:lynn at lstamour.org>;internal-cg at ianacg.org  <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>
>>     Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..
>>
>>     Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide
>>
>>     feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates ..
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist
>>
>>     in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the
>>
>>     ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph
>>
>>     (showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..
>>
>>        
>>
>>     I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although
>>
>>     it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and
>>
>>     several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)
>>
>>     ..
>>
>>        
>>
>>     I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review
>>
>>     and provide further guidance ..
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the
>>
>>     current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which
>>
>>     won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public
>>
>>     comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public
>>
>>     comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the
>>
>>     accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Kind Regards
>>
>>     --Manal
>>
>>        
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>
>>     From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
>>
>>     St.Amour
>>
>>     Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM
>>
>>     To:internal-cg at ianacg.org  <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>
>>     Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Again, thanks much Manal,
>>
>>        
>>
>>     To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made
>>
>>     some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I
>>
>>     would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a
>>
>>     critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the
>>
>>     Exec. Summary.
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.
>>
>>     summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it
>>
>>     wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,
>>
>>     unfortunately).
>>
>>        
>>
>>     And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -
>>
>>     Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to
>>
>>     ensure they reflect the latest positions?
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site
>>
>>     no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"
>>
>>     drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period
>>
>>     timetable of July 31st.
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Many thanks,
>>
>>        
>>
>>     Lynn
>>
>>        
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>
>>     Internal-cg mailing list
>>
>>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org  <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>
>>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>
>>     Internal-cg mailing list
>>
>>     Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org  <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>>
>>     http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> = 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/8a235de6/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Mon Jul 27 22:13:46 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:13:46 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive summary files for your review [was RE:
 Latest version of the combined proposal - v5]
In-Reply-To: <55B6AA4A.5010309@oracle.com>
References: <02bd01d0c620$dad48bc0$907da340$@icgsec.asia>
	<1372806963.3148870.1437977478769.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<3ED209F9-8F5B-4C95-8E95-29A58B209A92@cooperw.in>
	<55B6AA4A.5010309@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <6c20fca1a76442f5b0404c0de302feff@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Agree with Joe ..
To be consistent, I suggest we finalize the ICG report first (being the most exhaustive), then copy and paste relevant parts (shortened as necessary) to the executive summary, public comment webpage and maybe some answers of the FAQ ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 12:02 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; Mary Uduma
Cc: Jennifer Chung; Manal Ismail; Lynn St.Amour; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Executive summary files for your review [was RE: Latest version of the combined proposal - v5]

colleagues:

The executive summary was a cut and past of sections of the document; I was very concerned that all topics in the executive summary have been sourced from the document. If we make changes in the Executive Summary we should make sure that the underlying document reflects those changes as well.

As to completeness we agrees that  if the Workstream 1 contingencies are carried out it would be considered complete.  Recall that they have provided all the elements requested - in theory complete, but not final because a number are subject to consistencies.

Joe
On 7/27/2015 3:38 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Mary, all,

I’ve done some editing on the executive summary. Most of it is editorial but one piece that struck me as missing was a summary of the proposals themselves. I took the summary text from Part 0 and tried to shrink it further and added it here.

Per Manal’s comments re comment process and timeline: I don’t think either of those belong in the executive summary, nor in the ICG report. The public comment process instructions will all be on the public comment web site and I think it’s useful to maintain the separation between the substantive content of the document and the instructions and extra material relating to the public comment process. As for the timeline information, we have communicated separately about that to NTIA and the public, so I don’t see a need to re-hash it in the proposal or the executive summary. Readers should be focusing on the content of the document and the timeline material was primarily for the purpose of NTIA’s decision regarding the contract extension, which is a separate issue.

Responses to Mary’s points are below.

On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com<mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>> wrote:


Jennifer and All,

I wrote comments direct at the dropbox regarding the Executive summary. Pardon me if I did it wrongly.
Below are my comments and I hope it can still be taken into consideration.

"The ICG has concluded that the names proposal is complete
on the condition that the...................., are concluded"

I am still struggling with this assertion  of conclusion by the ICG as there are some incomplete/outstanding issues in the names proposal.viz
The CCWG work stream 1 ongoing process mentioned in the section

I thought we concluded this on the last call, just as it is in the document now — that we only consider the names proposal complete pending the completion of CCWG Workstream 1.


The CP-! issue Vs the Framework of Interpretation, RFC 1591 on ccTLD

I thought we resolved this on the last call given that Keith raised this issue and seemed satisfied with the result.


The placehold regarding the iana.org<http://iana.org/> issue,

This is an implementation issue and clearly labeled as such in the proposal. We cannot expect all implementation issues to be finished before we consider the proposal complete, otherwise we will never finish. Many of them cannot be finished until it is known whether the proposal is accepted by the USG (precisely why it is called a “proposal” I think).


The incomplete SLE, etc

This is also an implementation issue. All three of the communities are working on their service level agreements, but none of these are gating on the proposal going froward.


Except I omitted some communications within the ICG, I feel the proposal is not complete without resolutions of these issues.
I did suggest or asked if the paragraph could be reworded to "noting" instead of "concluded" since the ICG would still have to make a determination on the completeness of the names proposal after the CCWG work S1 is accepted by the names community. ("At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete”)

I have made this edit in the attached.


However, if the ICG had concluded that the proposal is complete inspite of the oustandings, the WS1 of the CCWG, kindly clarify.

I thought this is what we concluded on the last call.


My second comment was on the workability section.
Does the ICG not consider the layers of revews in the names proposal and those of the other two proposals a workability issue? I do see workability issue here and would request  that this question be included in the matrix of questions.
"How will the layers or multiple reviews in the names proposal and those in the other two communities' proposals inpact on IFO's service delivery?

I thought we also concluded this on the last call, namely that the IANA department is already subject to multiple reviews from the different communities, so the proposed combination of reviews is something that the department is already accustomed to handling. I would expect as well that the division of labor within the department is such that handling the reviews is manageable (e.g., at the IETF the protocol parameters staff are the folks involved in the performance reviews and reporting and I wouldn’t expect them to also be involved in the reviews for the other functions if they do not actually work on the other functions).

Thanks,
Alissa

=




Mary Uduma

On Friday, July 24, 2015 3:56 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>> wrote:

Hi Joe and All,

Both attachments from Joe are available for review in this Dropbox folder (which also contains all the latest versions of everything you need to review for the upcoming public comment period).

Dropbox folder link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>; 'Manal Ismail' <manal at tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <lynn at lstamour.org<mailto:lynn at lstamour.org>>; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5

Colleagues:

I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to end abruptly?

Happy for any thoughts.

Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive summary to drop box?

I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could be useful elsewhere...

Joe
On 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:

Hi All,



Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:

http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well as

the requests from Manal below:



"maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggested

link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,

individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions

(for 2014) per area) .."



Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:

1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization process

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz

ation-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment word

template (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so if

we want to link to this in the ICG report.



2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANA

presentation linked here:

https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-departm

ent-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that is

envisaged.



Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.

Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge the

ICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.



As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents

for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2



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 Manal

Ismail

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PM

To: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org><mailto:lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>

Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5



Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..

Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and provide

feedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates ..



Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assist

in inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the

ICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph

(showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..



I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Although

it is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review and

several edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)

..



I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would review

and provide further guidance ..



Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect the

current status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) which

won't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for public

comments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for public

comment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of the

accountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?



Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..



Kind Regards

--Manal



-----Original Message-----

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn

St.Amour

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PM

To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>

Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5



Again, thanks much Manal,



To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and made

some edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  I

would appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is a

critical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to the

Exec. Summary.



Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.

summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have it

wrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,

unfortunately).



And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -

Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections to

ensure they reflect the latest positions?



Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-site

no later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"

drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment period

timetable of July 31st.



Many thanks,



Lynn



_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>

http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>

http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/39fad23f/attachment.html>

From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 28 00:03:06 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:03:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive summary files for your review
	[was	RE:	Latest version of the combined proposal - v5]
In-Reply-To: <3ED209F9-8F5B-4C95-8E95-29A58B209A92@cooperw.in>
References: <3ED209F9-8F5B-4C95-8E95-29A58B209A92@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <533906111.3767868.1438041786408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Thanks Alissa for your responses to my mail and your edits that have clarified some ambiguity in the document. I believe you have made the same edits in the main body of the report.
Mary Uduma





   


     On Monday, July 27, 2015 8:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
   

 Mary, all,
I’ve done some editing on the executive summary. Most of it is editorial but one piece that struck me as missing was a summary of the proposals themselves. I took the summary text from Part 0 and tried to shrink it further and added it here.
Per Manal’s comments re comment process and timeline: I don’t think either of those belong in the executive summary, nor in the ICG report. The public comment process instructions will all be on the public comment web site and I think it’s useful to maintain the separation between the substantive content of the document and the instructions and extra material relating to the public comment process. As for the timeline information, we have communicated separately about that to NTIA and the public, so I don’t see a need to re-hash it in the proposal or the executive summary. Readers should be focusing on the content of the document and the timeline material was primarily for the purpose of NTIA’s decision regarding the contract extension, which is a separate issue.
Responses to Mary’s points are below.
On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:

Jennifer and All,
I wrote comments direct at the dropbox regarding the Executive summary. Pardon me if I did it wrongly.Below are my comments and I hope it can still be taken into consideration.
"The ICG has concluded that the names proposal is completeon the condition that the...................., are concluded"
I am still struggling with this assertion  of conclusion by the ICG as there are some incomplete/outstanding issues in the names proposal.viz 
The CCWG work stream 1 ongoing process mentioned in the section 


I thought we concluded this on the last call, just as it is in the document now — that we only consider the names proposal complete pending the completion of CCWG Workstream 1.

The CP-! issue Vs the Framework of Interpretation, RFC 1591 on ccTLD

I thought we resolved this on the last call given that Keith raised this issue and seemed satisfied with the result.

The placehold regarding the iana.org issue, 


This is an implementation issue and clearly labeled as such in the proposal. We cannot expect all implementation issues to be finished before we consider the proposal complete, otherwise we will never finish. Many of them cannot be finished until it is known whether the proposal is accepted by the USG (precisely why it is called a “proposal” I think).

The incomplete SLE, etc


This is also an implementation issue. All three of the communities are working on their service level agreements, but none of these are gating on the proposal going froward.

Except I omitted some communications within the ICG, I feel the proposal is not complete without resolutions of these issues.I did suggest or asked if the paragraph could be reworded to "noting" instead of "concluded" since the ICG would still have to make a determination on the completeness of the names proposal after the CCWG work S1 is accepted by the names community. ("At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete”)

I have made this edit in the attached.

However, if the ICG had concluded that the proposal is complete inspite of the oustandings, the WS1 of the CCWG, kindly clarify.  


I thought this is what we concluded on the last call.

My second comment was on the workability section.Does the ICG not consider the layers of revews in the names proposal and those of the other two proposals a workability issue? I do see workability issue here and would request  that this question be included in the matrix of questions. 
"How will the layers or multiple reviews in the names proposal and those in the other two communities' proposals inpact on IFO's service delivery?

I thought we also concluded this on the last call, namely that the IANA department is already subject to multiple reviews from the different communities, so the proposed combination of reviews is something that the department is already accustomed to handling. I would expect as well that the division of labor within the department is such that handling the reviews is manageable (e.g., at the IETF the protocol parameters staff are the folks involved in the performance reviews and reporting and I wouldn’t expect them to also be involved in the reviews for the other functions if they do not actually work on the other functions).
Thanks,Alissa




Mary Uduma

On Friday, July 24, 2015 3:56 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:


Hi Joe and All, Both attachments from Joe are available for review in this Dropbox folder (which also contains all the latest versions of everything you need to review for the upcoming public comment period). Dropbox folder link: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Manal Ismail' <manal at tra.gov.eg>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5 Colleagues:

I attach a proposed executive summary.  I have drafted a slightly longer stand alone version of the summary sourced from the document.  It summarizes process and conclusions. We may wish to add a closing section as it seems to end abruptly?

Happy for any thoughts.

Jennifer, I'm running out to a meeting, could you post the draft executive summary to drop box?

I also attach a first and incomplete draft of what had been a more summarized version, but think that the short version may be best suited to public material or a cover note.  I attach it to see if any language could be useful elsewhere...

JoeOn 7/23/2015 11:55 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote:
Hi All,  Attached and linked is v5-MI-LSA-PW-JC.  Dropbox link:http://icgsec.asia/1JiezqA . This includes Paul's latest edits as well asthe requests from Manal below:  "maybe secretariat could kindly assist in inserting the suggestedlink(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which the ICG assessed the proposals,individually and collectively) and graph (showing the % of IANA transactions(for 2014) per area) .."  Two points relating to Manal/Lynn's request:1. I have linked to the published ICG proposal finalization processhttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf.  We have not published the individual assessment wordtemplate (http://icgsec.asia/1el3lEA) on the ICG web site - I can do so ifwe want to link to this in the ICG report.  2. The data for the chart inserted was taken from pg. 53 of the IANApresentation linked here:https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana/presentation-iana-department-11feb15-en.pdf. Lynn/Manal/all, please let me know if this is that isenvisaged.  Lastly please note that the paragraph numbering is not correct in this file.Once all the edits for the ICG report are in, the Secretariat will merge theICG report back into the correctly numbered v5.  As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documentsfor your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2   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 ManalIsmailSent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:07 PMTo: Lynn St.Amour <lynn at lstamour.org>; internal-cg at ianacg.orgSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5  Many thanks Lynn for the suggested edits and for your comments ..Following your email, I would also urge colleagues to review and providefeedback by Friday in order to meet our public comment period dates ..   Meanwhile, for the sake of time, maybe the secretariat could kindly assistin inserting the suggested link(s)/footnote(s) (criteria against which theICG assessed the proposals, individually and collectively) and graph(showing the % of IANA transactions (for 2014) per area) ..  I also believe we need to conclude on the order of the proposals .. Althoughit is not a substantial change it would still require a thorough review andseveral edits throughout the document (ICG report, sections' headers, ...)..  I had a few questions throughout the report and hope colleagues would reviewand provide further guidance ..  Finally, some parts of the text (highlighted in blue to my best) reflect thecurrent status of the accountability proposal (ongoing discussions) whichwon't be the case (accountability proposal finalized and put out for publiccomments too) by the time the combined transition proposal is out for publiccomment .. Should such parts be changed to reflect the status of theaccountability proposal at the time of the public comment period?  Looking forward to receiving your input/feedback/suggestions/comments ..  Kind Regards--Manal  -----Original Message-----From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of LynnSt.AmourSent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:54 PMTo: internal-cg at ianacg.orgSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Latest version of the combined proposal - v5  Again, thanks much Manal,  To-date, I reviewed this through the ICG report section (only), and madesome edits to try and convey why the report was combined in this way.  Iwould appreciate it if folks could review it carefully, as I believe it is acritical point (and sensitive).  And, some of it may be better suited to theExec. Summary.    Joe, I believe you had volunteered to send some draft text re the Exec.summary.  If this is correct, can I do anything to help?  If I have itwrong, I will look up the minutes (can't do that just now though,unfortunately).  And, could those individuals who have been participating in the CWG -Stewardship and the CCWG efforts, please review the appropriate sections toensure they reflect the latest positions?  Finally, we should aim to have  all comments on this and the public web-siteno later than this Friday, so that we can review the "very near final"drafts of this on Monday, in order to meet our public comment periodtimetable of July 31st.  Many thanks,  Lynn  _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/20915b1d/attachment.html>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Tue Jul 28 02:32:36 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:32:36 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
In-Reply-To: <40EA85DD-57A2-4AB2-825B-7C75937316F3@cooperw.in>
References: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<02b801d0c497$f1290ed0$d37b2c70$@icgsec.asia>
	<40EA85DD-57A2-4AB2-825B-7C75937316F3@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <F1444CCF-E747-43E6-A4E5-FDD7573D0CCD@LStAmour.org>

Hi Alissa,

I was just coming to the same position myself (trying to reflect the on-going changes to the Combined Proposal in this document was becoming quite a task).

As we have the document below (with all changes shown), I have just accepted all changes and also tried to respond to a few comments in the document.  This hopefully makes the key portions and the overall direction more clear ahead of our call on Wednesday.  We can add the final text once we agree on the final Combined Proposal.

Best,
Lynn

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v4 near final.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38853 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150727/b1756178/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------


On Jul 27, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> I have a suggestion for how to proceed with this: I think we should focus on finalizing the executive summary for the proposal, and then just use the executive summary text for the Development Process and Proposal Summary sections of the public comment web site. That way we don’t need to duplicate efforts editing both documents, at least for those sections.
> 
> I’ve done a bit of editing in the attached, mostly editorial changes.
> 
> <public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC-PW-ALC.docx>
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you Manal.  I have also added an edit to the last section re
>> 'Completed Community Public Comment Periods'.
>> 
>> All - the latest version is attached and in the Dropbox folder for your
>> review.
>> 
>> Dropbox link to v3-MI-JC: http://icgsec.asia/1GCUB3w 
>> Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
>> 
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Jennifer
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:27 AM
>> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <Lynn at LStAmour.org>;
>> internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
>> 
>> Thanks Jennifer ..
>> 
>> Thanks Lynn ..
>> Please find attached and on Dropbox a few remarks marked in track changes ..
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jennifer Chung
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:21 PM
>> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Please find the public comment web page v3 (final section links added,
>> public comment date inserted) attached and linked below:
>> Dropbox link to v3: http://icgsec.asia/1RN2v60
>> 
>> All previous versions of this document have been preserved and moved to a
>> different Dropbox subfolder called 'Web page materials' (CoordinationGroup >
>> Web page materials): http://icgsec.asia/1MFLRyE 
>> 
>> All the latest versions of all materials for the ICG public comment period
>> launch is available here for your review (CoordinationGroup > Public
>> Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
>> 
>> 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 Lynn
>> St.Amour
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:45 AM
>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence. 
>> 
>> Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and
>> ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.
>> 
>> ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday
>> 24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for
>> final approval and posting.
>> 
>> Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,
>> 
>> Best,
>> Lynn
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I've updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
>> discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial
>> work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from
>> the ICG report in the combined proposal.
>>> 
>>> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this 
>>> by
>> July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
>>> 
>>> I'm hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of 
>>> incorporating
>> feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly
>> tied up with IETF matters next week.
>>> 
>>> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
>> section, that would be great.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> [1]
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl
>> =0
>>> 
>>> 
>> <public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>___________________________________________
>> ____
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> <public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC.docx>_______________________________________________
>> 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 Jul 28 03:51:53 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:51:53 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #21 - July 29 5:00-7:00 UTC
Message-ID: <E4187C99-7F3E-47DA-A980-A442D689D58A@cooperw.in>

We will aim to finalize items #1-4 on the July 29 call.

Agenda:

1. Combined proposal including ICG report

2. Executive summary

3. Public comment web site material

4. Q&A matrix

5. Communications plan for public comment launch

6. Minutes approval


From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul 28 04:05:48 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:05:48 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group
Message-ID: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>

The comms WG had a call with our broader comms partners last week and we have a few questions for ICG members as a result:

1. Is there an ICG member who is willing to live-tweet one or both webinars? The dates/times are not final yet but they will like be Aug 6 and 7 in two different time zones. ICANN will have Sam Dickinson tweeting but we thought we might want to also have someone tweeting in the ICG “voice.”

2. What outreach are you planning to do in your community/constituency regarding the public comment period? At a minimum we’d like to encourage you all to re-tweet/re-post/forward the ICG announcements relating to the public comment launch and the webinars. If you are planning to do that or any other additional outreach, speaking events, consultations, etc., please let the rest of us know by responding to this message.

3. Further to point #2 above, if anyone is interested in running a webinar targeted to your particular constituency or region at any point during the public comment launch, please respond to this message. The comms team can help with logistics and promotion.

Thanks,
Alissa

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul 28 04:06:40 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:06:40 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #21 - Wednesday, 29 July 2015,
	05:00-07:00 UTC
Message-ID: <001201d0c8ea$cf512b10$6df38130$@icgsec.asia>

Dear ICG Members,

 

This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #21 is scheduled for:

 

**Wednesday, 29 July 2015**

05:00-07:00 UTC

 

See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1RjgiMb 

Announcement:
<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/>
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/ 

 

You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call
details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email
(off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.
Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar
subscription function here:  <https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/>
https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know
at  <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> admin at icgsec.asia.

 

Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room -
<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To
avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio
from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you
plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to
mute the virtual meeting room.

 

Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue.
To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect
room:



If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please
let the Secretariat team know.

 

Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH
and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note
that Livestreaming translations in AR and RU for not available for this
call, and ZH will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call,
thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30
minutes.

 

Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the
Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the
global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English
stream.

 

Agenda proposed by Alissa

1. Combined proposal including ICG report

 

2. Executive summary

 

3. Public comment web site material

 

4. Q&A matrix

 

5. Communications plan for public comment launch

 

6. Minutes approval

 

As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any
questions, concerns or need a dial-out.

 

Thank you!

 

Best regards

ICG Secretariat Team

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/9596f3e8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/9596f3e8/attachment.png>

From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 28 04:18:26 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:18:26 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #21 - Wednesday, 29 July 2015,
	05:00-07:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <001201d0c8ea$cf512b10$6df38130$@icgsec.asia>
References: <001201d0c8ea$cf512b10$6df38130$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <5D285376-8DD6-4827-BFBE-5D980251A904@t-online.de>

I have to apologize for not attending the call. I'm still on travel in South China.
I'll try to provide comments in advance as applicable. May I ask the secretariat to provide submit all documents to be discussed 


Sent from my personal phone

> Am 28.07.2015 um 12:06 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
> 
> Dear ICG Members,
> 
>  
> 
> This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #21 is scheduled for:
> 
>  
> 
> **Wednesday, 29 July 2015**
> 
> 05:00-07:00 UTC
> 
>  
> 
> See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1RjgiMb
> 
> Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/
> 
>  
> 
> You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.  Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia.
> 
>  
> 
> Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room – https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room.
> 
>  
> 
> Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room:
> 
> <image001.png>
> 
> If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know.
> 
>  
> 
> Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note that Livestreaming translations in AR and RU for not available for this call, and ZH will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.
> 
>  
> 
> Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream.
> 
>  
> 
> Agenda proposed by Alissa
> 
> 1. Combined proposal including ICG report
>  
> 2. Executive summary
>  
> 3. Public comment web site material
>  
> 4. Q&A matrix
>  
> 5. Communications plan for public comment launch
>  
> 6. Minutes approval
>  
> 
> As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> ICG Secretariat Team
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/24618c16/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/24618c16/attachment.png>

From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 28 04:24:29 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:24:29 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #21 - Wednesday, 29 July 2015,
	05:00-07:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <001201d0c8ea$cf512b10$6df38130$@icgsec.asia>
References: <001201d0c8ea$cf512b10$6df38130$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <BA2F4DF2-5E68-49AF-878B-327080F40D56@t-online.de>

I have to apologize for not attending the call. I'm still on travel in South China.
I'll try to provide comments in advance as applicable. May I ask the secretariat to send me all documents to be discussed in Word. I can't access Dropbox from here.

Thanks and regards
Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

> Am 28.07.2015 um 12:06 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
> 
> Dear ICG Members,
> 
>  
> 
> This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #21 is scheduled for:
> 
>  
> 
> **Wednesday, 29 July 2015**
> 
> 05:00-07:00 UTC
> 
>  
> 
> See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1RjgiMb
> 
> Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/
> 
>  
> 
> You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.  Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia.
> 
>  
> 
> Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room – https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room.
> 
>  
> 
> Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room:
> 
> <image001.png>
> 
> If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know.
> 
>  
> 
> Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note that Livestreaming translations in AR and RU for not available for this call, and ZH will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.
> 
>  
> 
> Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream.
> 
>  
> 
> Agenda proposed by Alissa
> 
> 1. Combined proposal including ICG report
>  
> 2. Executive summary
>  
> 3. Public comment web site material
>  
> 4. Q&A matrix
>  
> 5. Communications plan for public comment launch
>  
> 6. Minutes approval
>  
> 
> As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> ICG Secretariat Team
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/c1dd2ab4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/c1dd2ab4/attachment.png>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Tue Jul 28 05:14:34 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 01:14:34 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #21 - July 29 5:00-7:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <E4187C99-7F3E-47DA-A980-A442D689D58A@cooperw.in>
References: <E4187C99-7F3E-47DA-A980-A442D689D58A@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <A2C20219-2F1D-4F7A-A8BC-C0223D51CADB@tislabs.com>

Alisa,

I know that we have a pretty full agenda but I wanted to ask if we were going to discuss completing the draft slide deck on the next call (maybe in item 5??) or on the mail list?

Russ M

On Jul 27, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> We will aim to finalize items #1-4 on the July 29 call.
> 
> Agenda:
> 
> 1. Combined proposal including ICG report
> 
> 2. Executive summary
> 
> 3. Public comment web site material
> 
> 4. Q&A matrix
> 
> 5. Communications plan for public comment launch
> 
> 6. Minutes approval
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 28 06:28:18 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 02:28:18 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
In-Reply-To: <F1444CCF-E747-43E6-A4E5-FDD7573D0CCD@LStAmour.org>
References: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<02b801d0c497$f1290ed0$d37b2c70$@icgsec.asia>	<40EA85DD-57A2-4AB2-825B-7C75937316F3@cooperw.in>
	<F1444CCF-E747-43E6-A4E5-FDD7573D0CCD@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <55B72102.6050805@oracle.com>

In the second paragraph we ask people to "provide opinions" are we 
seeking comments or opinions or both?  By seeking opinions, a failure of 
response could be interpreted as a lack of support, whereas a failure of 
comments is usually interpreted as support. Furthermore if someone has 
an issue it would be useful to know what they would see as a resolution 
of the issue.

On 7/27/2015 10:32 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
> Hi Alissa,
>
> I was just coming to the same position myself (trying to reflect the on-going changes to the Combined Proposal in this document was becoming quite a task).
>
> As we have the document below (with all changes shown), I have just accepted all changes and also tried to respond to a few comments in the document.  This hopefully makes the key portions and the overall direction more clear ahead of our call on Wednesday.  We can add the final text once we agree on the final Combined Proposal.
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
>> I have a suggestion for how to proceed with this: I think we should focus on finalizing the executive summary for the proposal, and then just use the executive summary text for the Development Process and Proposal Summary sections of the public comment web site. That way we don’t need to duplicate efforts editing both documents, at least for those sections.
>>
>> I’ve done a bit of editing in the attached, mostly editorial changes.
>>
>> <public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC-PW-ALC.docx>
>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Manal.  I have also added an edit to the last section re
>>> 'Completed Community Public Comment Periods'.
>>>
>>> All - the latest version is attached and in the Dropbox folder for your
>>> review.
>>>
>>> Dropbox link to v3-MI-JC: http://icgsec.asia/1GCUB3w
>>> Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Jennifer
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:27 AM
>>> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>; 'Lynn St.Amour' <Lynn at LStAmour.org>;
>>> internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
>>>
>>> Thanks Jennifer ..
>>>
>>> Thanks Lynn ..
>>> Please find attached and on Dropbox a few remarks marked in track changes ..
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>> --Manal
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Jennifer Chung
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:21 PM
>>> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Please find the public comment web page v3 (final section links added,
>>> public comment date inserted) attached and linked below:
>>> Dropbox link to v3: http://icgsec.asia/1RN2v60
>>>
>>> All previous versions of this document have been preserved and moved to a
>>> different Dropbox subfolder called 'Web page materials' (CoordinationGroup >
>>> Web page materials): http://icgsec.asia/1MFLRyE
>>>
>>> All the latest versions of all materials for the ICG public comment period
>>> launch is available here for your review (CoordinationGroup > Public
>>> Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>>
>>> 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 Lynn
>>> St.Amour
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:45 AM
>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v2
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> just trying to move this forward in our chair's absence.
>>>
>>> Could the secretariat include relevant links (per the request below) and
>>> ensure the latest is posted on dropbox.
>>>
>>> ICG members, could we have any remaining comments on this by this Friday
>>> 24th July?  I will then incorporate the feedback and turn it around for
>>> final approval and posting.
>>>
>>> Must all be DONE by July 29th for start of public comment period,
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I've updated the public comment web page material [1] based on our
>>> discussions at the F2F and during our last call. I also did some editorial
>>> work on it. The Background and Summary sections are derived directly from
>>> the ICG report in the combined proposal.
>>>> Please review and provide your feedback. We will need to finalize this
>>>> by
>>> July 29 assuming we finish the proposal assessment this week.
>>>> I'm hoping that Lynn will be able to shepherd the process of
>>>> incorporating
>>> feedback and filling in the remaining placeholders since I will be mostly
>>> tied up with IETF matters next week.
>>>> Secretariat: If you could gather the links that should go in the final
>>> section, that would be great.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bx3hjc18zdjqxox/public-comment-web-page-v2.docx?dl
>>> =0
>>>>
>>> <public-comment-web-page-v2.docx>___________________________________________
>>> ____
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>> <public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/acca22e2/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Jul 28 06:44:47 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:44:47 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3
In-Reply-To: <F1444CCF-E747-43E6-A4E5-FDD7573D0CCD@LStAmour.org>
References: <f2d8a8e879b943e0b6e20ac4d7bd795a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<02b801d0c497$f1290ed0$d37b2c70$@icgsec.asia>
	<40EA85DD-57A2-4AB2-825B-7C75937316F3@cooperw.in>
	<F1444CCF-E747-43E6-A4E5-FDD7573D0CCD@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <06fee3a3bc1b4e2fb39b4e1e2cada4cd@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Lynn for your responses to my comments ..
I agree to both ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:33 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] public comment web page v3

Hi Alissa,

I was just coming to the same position myself (trying to reflect the on-going changes to the Combined Proposal in this document was becoming quite a task).

As we have the document below (with all changes shown), I have just accepted all changes and also tried to respond to a few comments in the document.  This hopefully makes the key portions and the overall direction more clear ahead of our call on Wednesday.  We can add the final text once we agree on the final Combined Proposal.

Best,
Lynn



From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Tue Jul 28 07:04:12 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 03:04:12 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group
In-Reply-To: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>
References: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <55B7296C.1000002@oracle.com>

Re point 2: We have already forwarded the note related to the comment 
period to the broad membership.  We will also send out the links for 
public comment materials along with the proposal when ready.  Is there a 
way for people to log into a stored/cached webinar?  Because August is 
such a vacation time, it would be best for people to view at their 
convenience.

Joe

On 7/28/2015 12:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> The comms WG had a call with our broader comms partners last week and we have a few questions for ICG members as a result:
>
> 1. Is there an ICG member who is willing to live-tweet one or both webinars? The dates/times are not final yet but they will like be Aug 6 and 7 in two different time zones. ICANN will have Sam Dickinson tweeting but we thought we might want to also have someone tweeting in the ICG “voice.”
>
> 2. What outreach are you planning to do in your community/constituency regarding the public comment period? At a minimum we’d like to encourage you all to re-tweet/re-post/forward the ICG announcements relating to the public comment launch and the webinars. If you are planning to do that or any other additional outreach, speaking events, consultations, etc., please let the rest of us know by responding to this message.
>
> 3. Further to point #2 above, if anyone is interested in running a webinar targeted to your particular constituency or region at any point during the public comment launch, please respond to this message. The comms team can help with logistics and promotion.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 28 10:08:50 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:08:50 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group
In-Reply-To: <55B7296C.1000002@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <8373554.504.1438078128968.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

With help from the Communications Team, I'd be willing to take part in webinars in
- English (anywhere),
- French (anywhere),
- Europe,
- Asia,
- Pacific.

Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mardi 28 Juillet 2015 09:04:12
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group

Re point 2: We have already forwarded the note related to the comment 
period to the broad membership.  We will also send out the links for 
public comment materials along with the proposal when ready.  Is there a 
way for people to log into a stored/cached webinar?  Because August is 
such a vacation time, it would be best for people to view at their 
convenience.

Joe

On 7/28/2015 12:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> The comms WG had a call with our broader comms partners last week and we have a few questions for ICG members as a result:
>
> 1. Is there an ICG member who is willing to live-tweet one or both webinars? The dates/times are not final yet but they will like be Aug 6 and 7 in two different time zones. ICANN will have Sam Dickinson tweeting but we thought we might want to also have someone tweeting in the ICG “voice.”
>
> 2. What outreach are you planning to do in your community/constituency regarding the public comment period? At a minimum we’d like to encourage you all to re-tweet/re-post/forward the ICG announcements relating to the public comment launch and the webinars. If you are planning to do that or any other additional outreach, speaking events, consultations, etc., please let the rest of us know by responding to this message.
>
> 3. Further to point #2 above, if anyone is interested in running a webinar targeted to your particular constituency or region at any point during the public comment launch, please respond to this message. The comms team can help with logistics and promotion.
>
> 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 Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Tue Jul 28 10:47:14 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:47:14 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <D1DBAEE2.37E04%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
	<1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<D1DBAEE2.37E04%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADADD0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Hi Elise,

No!  This would be a change from the CWG's proposal.  The CWG's approach was to avoid replacing the NTIA's administrative and clerical role by something that might become a gatekeeper.

There is an authorisation role for more changes affecting root-zone management architecture and operation (such as, in the past, the introduction of DNSSEC), but that was more about a process for such changes - documented in the section at paragraph 154 et seq.

Hope this helps, Elise,

Martin


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich
Sent: 27 July 2015 17:54
To: Mary Uduma; Russ Mundy; Paul Wilson
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

All,

Slide 13 states that the mission of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) is "Established to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by the U.S. Government, ensure continues satisfactory performance of the IANA naming function."

One of the operational responsibilities of NTIA today is to authorize changes to the root zone.  It was my understanding from the CWG proposal that the "authorization" responsibility of root zone changes would go away.  Is this slide implying that the CSC will have an operational role authorizing root zone changes?

Regards,
-- Elise


From: Internal-cg <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>> on behalf of Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com<mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>>
Reply-To: Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com<mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>>
Date: Monday, July 27, 2015 at 12:14 AM
To: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com<mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net<mailto:pwilson at apnic.net>>
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

All,
Quite happy with the webinar deck. In addition to the points already raised by others, I wish to suggest the following
1. Explanation of the lines, the straight and the broken ones. (New Comers)
2. Few of the acronyms in the diagram be explained for the uninformed.
3  Further adjustment on slide 28 regarding the numbers and the protocol relationship with the ICANN and IFO. While the Protocol shows connection from IETF pointing  to PTI (Vmetrics), the Numbers (Review Performance) points  to ICANN. There is no  broken line between the Numbers and PTI unlike the Names and the Protocols diagrams.
I am glad to receive clarifications, if I am wrong on my point 3.

By the way, would the deck be adjusted for each audience? When addressing community like the ccTLDs for example.

Great work, folks.

Mary Uduma


On Monday, July 27, 2015 5:59 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com<mailto:mundy at tislabs.com>> wrote:


On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net<mailto:pwilson at apnic.net>> wrote:

> For slide 3, let's rely on the term "Registry" rather than "Database" or "Info".  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of structure and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.

I agree that Registry is the commonly used term in the Numbers and Protocol Parameters realms but not in the Names realm.

>
> For numbers, the label should be "Numbers Registries", like "Protocol Parameters Registries".

I would be fine with these terms for those two OCs.

>
> Personally I also prefer "Names Registries" or "Root Zone Registry" - but I would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.

The highly visible DNS information handled and published by IANA is predominantly related to the Root Zone and (as Patrik points out) is generally of two types, i.e., direct Root Zone content related info and whois info.  The whois info could be considered a 'registry' but that's not how it is usually referred to, it's simply called 'whois' information.

The Root Zone content information handled by IANA in filling it's role in the Root Zone Management process is not 'IANA registry' information like the Numbers and Protocol Parameters OCs. There are multiple reasons for this not the least of which is that IANA is not the authoritative source of this information in the running DNS.  The root name servers provide the authoritative root zone information for the running DNS and they receive the zone content from Verisign in their role as Root Zone Maintainer.  So in addition to the Root Zone not being like Registries in the Names and Protocol Parameters OCs, the Root Zone in the running DNS is not usually thought of or described as an IANA Registry.

I don't think that the slide deck should try to differentiate between Root Zone content and whois information but I think we need a single, collective term or phrase that describes both types of information - (probably obvious) I don't think 'Root Zone Registries' is the a viable phrase, I hope we can come up with a better one.

Russ


>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>
>> I have a few comments on this...
>>
>>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).
>>
>> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
>>
>>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
>>
>> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and specifically:
>>
>>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
>>
>> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service and not the root zone.
>>
>> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the slide deck too much.
>>
>> Patrik
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto: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<mailto:dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net <http://www.apnic.net/>                                           @apnicdg

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/2aef4610/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul 28 11:12:58 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 04:12:58 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group
In-Reply-To: <55B7296C.1000002@oracle.com>
References: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>
	<55B7296C.1000002@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <E1E5FF0F-2862-43E3-B94D-D92CBE3488AE@cooperw.in>

Yes, we will be recording the webinars and posting them on our site.



> On Jul 28, 2015, at 12:04 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Re point 2: We have already forwarded the note related to the comment period to the broad membership.  We will also send out the links for public comment materials along with the proposal when ready.  Is there a way for people to log into a stored/cached webinar?  Because August is such a vacation time, it would be best for people to view at their convenience.
> 
> Joe
> 
>> On 7/28/2015 12:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> The comms WG had a call with our broader comms partners last week and we have a few questions for ICG members as a result:
>> 
>> 1. Is there an ICG member who is willing to live-tweet one or both webinars? The dates/times are not final yet but they will like be Aug 6 and 7 in two different time zones. ICANN will have Sam Dickinson tweeting but we thought we might want to also have someone tweeting in the ICG “voice.”
>> 
>> 2. What outreach are you planning to do in your community/constituency regarding the public comment period? At a minimum we’d like to encourage you all to re-tweet/re-post/forward the ICG announcements relating to the public comment launch and the webinars. If you are planning to do that or any other additional outreach, speaking events, consultations, etc., please let the rest of us know by responding to this message.
>> 
>> 3. Further to point #2 above, if anyone is interested in running a webinar targeted to your particular constituency or region at any point during the public comment launch, please respond to this message. The comms team can help with logistics and promotion.
>> 
>> 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 Jul 28 12:01:34 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:01:34 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #21 - July 29 5:00-7:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <A2C20219-2F1D-4F7A-A8BC-C0223D51CADB@tislabs.com>
References: <E4187C99-7F3E-47DA-A980-A442D689D58A@cooperw.in>
	<A2C20219-2F1D-4F7A-A8BC-C0223D51CADB@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <87493CAD-D39A-4866-B3AD-47C67E05F604@cooperw.in>

Hi Russ,

We can add it to the agenda in case we have time for it. Otherwise we can discuss on the mailing list.

One thing I should have mentioned is that the slides representing the OC proposals have already been vetted by the chairs (and in some cases other members) of the OCs themselves.

Alissa

—

Updated agenda:

1. Combined proposal including ICG report

2. Executive summary

3. Public comment web site material

4. Q&A matrix

5. Slide deck (time permitting)

6. Communications plan for public comment launch

7. Minutes approval (time permitting)



On Jul 27, 2015, at 10:14 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:

> Alisa,
> 
> I know that we have a pretty full agenda but I wanted to ask if we were going to discuss completing the draft slide deck on the next call (maybe in item 5??) or on the mail list?
> 
> Russ M
> 
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> We will aim to finalize items #1-4 on the July 29 call.
>> 
>> Agenda:
>> 
>> 1. Combined proposal including ICG report
>> 
>> 2. Executive summary
>> 
>> 3. Public comment web site material
>> 
>> 4. Q&A matrix
>> 
>> 5. Communications plan for public comment launch
>> 
>> 6. Minutes approval
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Tue Jul 28 12:48:20 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:48:20 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group
In-Reply-To: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>
References: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <6848C5CE-7DDA-42A8-A54C-3EF7A6A6C67D@Internet-Matters.com>

On Jul 28, 2015, at 12:05 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 
> 2. What outreach are you planning to do in your community/constituency regarding the public comment period? At a minimum we’d like to encourage you all to re-tweet/re-post/forward the ICG announcements relating to the public comment launch and the webinars. If you are planning to do that or any other additional outreach, speaking events, consultations, etc., please let the rest of us know by responding to this message.
> 

Hi Alissa, all,

I certainly will use my personal network and I can also work with the IGF secretariat to promote through their channels.  That will get broad coverage from civil society and many governments.

Best,
Lynn



From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Tue Jul 28 12:49:35 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:49:35 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group (resending from
	correct email address)
In-Reply-To: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>
References: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <43471DA8-3A70-450F-A35B-3D0B00856B4B@LStAmour.org>

On Jul 28, 2015, at 12:05 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 
> 2. What outreach are you planning to do in your community/constituency regarding the public comment period? At a minimum we’d like to encourage you all to re-tweet/re-post/forward the ICG announcements relating to the public comment launch and the webinars. If you are planning to do that or any other additional outreach, speaking events, consultations, etc., please let the rest of us know by responding to this message.
> 

Hi Alissa, all,

I certainly will use my personal network and I can also work with the IGF secretariat to promote through their channels.  That will get broad coverage from civil society and many governments.

Best,
Lynn


_______________________________________________
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  Tue Jul 28 13:30:19 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:19 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
	<872D6DC2-ABA3-466E-A665-422BD1AF5C41@frobbit.se>
	<6EFC39E8-1C4D-4F9B-BBA1-65B6ADFE2768@apnic.net>
	<9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <20150728133018.GJ348@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Russ Mundy wrote:
> I don’t think that the slide deck should try to differentiate 
> between Root Zone content and whois information but I think 
> we need a single, collective term or phrase that describes 
> both types of information - (probably obvious) I don’t think 
> ‘Root Zone Registries’ is the a viable phrase, I hope we can 
> come up with a better one.

Perhaps the phrase "DNS Root Zone and WHOIS" would be good enough?

--apb (Alan Barrett)


From apb at cequrux.com  Tue Jul 28 13:34:36 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:34:36 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <20150728133436.GK348@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.

On the whole, I think this is quite good.  Some of the text is 
very small, especially on page 24, and I find it difficult to read 
white text on a light background, especially on pages 24 and 26.

--apb (Alan Barrett)


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Jul 28 13:38:13 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:13 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group
In-Reply-To: <6848C5CE-7DDA-42A8-A54C-3EF7A6A6C67D@Internet-Matters.com>
References: <30E90CE2-99AE-4BF2-9BAB-C6D9990850F3@cooperw.in>
	<6848C5CE-7DDA-42A8-A54C-3EF7A6A6C67D@Internet-Matters.com>
Message-ID: <b0213d775fe4422abe62d851026394e9@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

I have shared the most recent translated timeline on the GAC, GAC-Africa, Arab ICANN & Arab IGF mailing lists; and was planning to do the same with the webinar info and material as well as the later recordings .. I can also reach out to the MENOG & the Middle East DNS Forum mailing lists ..
On the other hand, I was also approached, along with Mohamed El-Bashir, to participate to a regional webinar on 18 August at 12:00 UTC .. 

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 2:48 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group

On Jul 28, 2015, at 12:05 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 
> 2. What outreach are you planning to do in your community/constituency regarding the public comment period? At a minimum we'd like to encourage you all to re-tweet/re-post/forward the ICG announcements relating to the public comment launch and the webinars. If you are planning to do that or any other additional outreach, speaking events, consultations, etc., please let the rest of us know by responding to this message.
> 

Hi Alissa, all,

I certainly will use my personal network and I can also work with the IGF secretariat to promote through their channels.  That will get broad coverage from civil society and many governments.

Best,
Lynn


_______________________________________________
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 Jul 28 13:44:51 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:44:51 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #21 - Wednesday, 29 July 2015,
	05:00-07:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <5D285376-8DD6-4827-BFBE-5D980251A904@t-online.de>
References: <001201d0c8ea$cf512b10$6df38130$@icgsec.asia>
	<5D285376-8DD6-4827-BFBE-5D980251A904@t-online.de>
Message-ID: <003b01d0c93b$94cb4fb0$be61ef10$@icgsec.asia>

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

 

I have attached the frozen documents for agenda items 1-4 for your review – just to clarify for everyone, these are the frozen versions available in this Dropbox folder (CoordinationGroup > Public Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

 

 

From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de [mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 12:18 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #21 - Wednesday, 29 July 2015, 05:00-07:00 UTC

 

I have to apologize for not attending the call. I'm still on travel in South China.

I'll try to provide comments in advance as applicable. May I ask the secretariat to provide submit all documents to be discussed 

 


Sent from my personal phone


Am 28.07.2015 um 12:06 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >:

Dear ICG Members,

 

This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #21 is scheduled for:

 

**Wednesday, 29 July 2015**

05:00-07:00 UTC

 

See time zone conversion here:  <http://bit.ly/1RjgiMb> http://bit.ly/1RjgiMb 

Announcement:  <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/ 

 

You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.  Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here:  <https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/> https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at  <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> admin at icgsec.asia.

 

Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room –  <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room.

 

Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room:

<image001.png>

If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know.

 

Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note that Livestreaming translations in AR and RU for not available for this call, and ZH will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.

 

Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream.

 

Agenda proposed by Alissa

1. Combined proposal including ICG report

 

2. Executive summary

 

3. Public comment web site material

 

4. Q&A matrix

 

5. Communications plan for public comment launch

 

6. Minutes approval

 

As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out.

 

Thank you!

 

Best regards

ICG Secretariat Team

 

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
 <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
 <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/d6276064/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v6-MI-KA-ALC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1624576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/d6276064/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Exec summary rev1-MI-ALC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 56832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/d6276064/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC-PW-ALC.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 39601 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/d6276064/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of internally resolved questions-v4.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 19554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/d6276064/attachment.xlsx>

From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Tue Jul 28 14:40:35 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:40:35 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #21 - Wednesday, 29 July 2015,
	05:00-07:00 UTC
Message-ID: <37FB824F-4631-4D05-9BCA-1425265C85A1@t-online.de>

Thanks Jennifer!
Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

> Am 28.07.2015 um 21:44 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
> 
> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
> 
> 
> 
> I have attached the frozen documents for agenda items 1-4 for your review – just to clarify for everyone, these are the frozen versions available in this Dropbox folder (CoordinationGroup > Public Comment): http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de [mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 12:18 AM
> To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #21 - Wednesday, 29 July 2015, 05:00-07:00 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> I have to apologize for not attending the call. I'm still on travel in South China.
> 
> I'll try to provide comments in advance as applicable. May I ask the secretariat to provide submit all documents to be discussed 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my personal phone
> 
> 
> Am 28.07.2015 um 12:06 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia <mailto:jen at icgsec.asia> >:
> 
> Dear ICG Members,
> 
> 
> 
> This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #21 is scheduled for:
> 
> 
> 
> **Wednesday, 29 July 2015**
> 
> 05:00-07:00 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> See time zone conversion here:  <http://bit.ly/1RjgiMb> http://bit.ly/1RjgiMb 
> 
> Announcement:  <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/> https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls-2/ 
> 
> 
> 
> You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call.  Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here:  <https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/> https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at  <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> admin at icgsec.asia.
> 
> 
> 
> Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room –  <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room.
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room:
> 
> <image001.png>
> 
> If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know.
> 
> 
> 
> Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: ES, FR, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call.  Please note that Livestreaming translations in AR and RU for not available for this call, and ZH will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream.
> 
> 
> 
> Agenda proposed by Alissa
> 
> 1. Combined proposal including ICG report
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Executive summary
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Public comment web site material
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Q&A matrix
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Communications plan for public comment launch
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Minutes approval
> 
> 
> 
> As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> ICG Secretariat Team
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> <combined-proposal-v6-MI-KA-ALC.doc>
> <Exec summary rev1-MI-ALC.doc>
> <public-comment-web-page-v3-MI-JC-PW-ALC.docx>
> <Summary of internally resolved questions-v4.xlsx>
> <4.txt>

From elise.gerich at icann.org  Tue Jul 28 15:06:15 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:06:15 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADADD0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
	<1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<D1DBAEE2.37E04%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADADD0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <D1DCE778.37EAD%elise.gerich@icann.org>

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the confirmation that the CWG proposal does not replace the
NTIA¹s operational authorization role.

Perhaps the slide deck could be revised to remove the text that indicates
that the CSC was ³established to perform the operational responsibilities
previously performed by the U.S. Government.² That would avoid any possible
misinterpretation that the CSC would have an active role in operations.

-- Elise 


From:  Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
Date:  Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:47 AM
To:  Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>,
Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
Cc:  IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  RE: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

> Hi Elise,
>  
> No!  This would be a change from the CWG¹s proposal.  The CWG¹s approach was
> to avoid replacing the NTIA¹s administrative and clerical role by something
> that might become a gatekeeper.
>  
> There is an authorisation role for more changes affecting root-zone management
> architecture and operation (such as, in the past, the introduction of DNSSEC),
> but that was more about a process for such changes ­ documented in the section
> at paragraph 154 et seq.
>  
> Hope this helps, Elise,
>  
> Martin
>  
>  
> 
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Elise
> Gerich
> Sent: 27 July 2015 17:54
> To: Mary Uduma; Russ Mundy; Paul Wilson
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
>  
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> Slide 13 states that the mission of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) is
> ³Established to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed
> by the U.S. Government, ensure continues satisfactory performance of the IANA
> naming function."
> 
>  
> 
> One of the operational responsibilities of NTIA today is to authorize changes
> to the root zone.  It was my understanding from the CWG proposal that the
> ³authorization² responsibility of root zone changes would go away.  Is this
> slide implying that the CSC will have an operational role authorizing root
> zone changes?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- Elise 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Internal-cg <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org> on behalf of Mary Uduma
> <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, July 27, 2015 at 12:14 AM
> To: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
> 
>  
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> Quite happy with the webinar deck. In addition to the points already raised
>> by others, I wish to suggest the following
>> 
>> 1. Explanation of the lines, the straight and the broken ones. (New Comers)
>> 
>> 2. Few of the acronyms in the diagram be explained for the uninformed.
>> 
>> 3  Further adjustment on slide 28 regarding the numbers and the protocol
>> relationship with the ICANN and IFO. While the Protocol shows connection from
>> IETF pointing  to PTI (Vmetrics), the Numbers (Review Performance) points  to
>> ICANN. There is no  broken line between the Numbers and PTI unlike the Names
>> and the Protocols diagrams.
>> 
>> I am glad to receive clarifications, if I am wrong on my point 3.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> By the way, would the deck be adjusted for each audience? When addressing
>> community like the ccTLDs for example.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Great work, folks.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Mary Uduma
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Monday, July 27, 2015 5:59 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> > For slide 3, let¹s rely on the term ³Registry² rather than ³Database² or
>>> ³Info².  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of
>>> structure and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.
>> 
>> I agree that Registry is the commonly used term in the Numbers and Protocol
>> Parameters realms but not in the Names realm.
>> 
>>> > 
>>> > For numbers, the label should be ³Numbers Registries², like ³Protocol
>>> Parameters Registries².
>> 
>> I would be fine with these terms for those two OCs.
>> 
>>> > 
>>> > Personally I also prefer ³Names Registries² or ³Root Zone Registry² - but
>>> I would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.
>> 
>> The highly visible DNS information handled and published by IANA is
>> predominantly related to the Root Zone and (as Patrik points out) is
>> generally of two types, i.e., direct Root Zone content related info and whois
>> info.  The whois info could be considered a Œregistry¹ but that¹s not how it
>> is usually referred to, it¹s simply called Œwhois¹ information.
>> 
>> The Root Zone content information handled by IANA in filling it¹s role in the
>> Root Zone Management process is not 'IANA registry¹ information like the
>> Numbers and Protocol Parameters OCs. There are multiple reasons for this not
>> the least of which is that IANA is not the authoritative source of this
>> information in the running DNS.  The root name servers provide the
>> authoritative root zone information for the running DNS and they receive the
>> zone content from Verisign in their role as Root Zone Maintainer.  So in
>> addition to the Root Zone not being like Registries in the Names and Protocol
>> Parameters OCs, the Root Zone in the running DNS is not usually thought of or
>> described as an IANA Registry.
>> 
>> I don¹t think that the slide deck should try to differentiate between Root
>> Zone content and whois information but I think we need a single, collective
>> term or phrase that describes both types of information - (probably obvious)
>> I don¹t think ŒRoot Zone Registries¹ is the a viable phrase, I hope we can
>> come up with a better one.
>> 
>> Russ 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> > 
>>> > Paul.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>> >> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
>>>> >> 
>>>>> >>> Folks,
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> I have a few comments on this...
>>>> >> 
>>>>> >>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not
>>>>> all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change
>>>>> Slide 10).
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply
>>>> changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are
>>>> unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
>>>> >> 
>>>>> >>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in
>>>>> databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.
>>>>> This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the
>>>>> other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called
>>>>> "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and
>>>> specifically:
>>>> >> 
>>>>> >>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change
>>>>> Slide 10)
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests
>>>> related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is
>>>> correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service
>>>> and not the root zone.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself
>>>> but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the
>>>> slide deck too much.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Patrik
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> 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  <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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/8f626ac1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/8f626ac1/attachment.p7s>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul 28 15:19:28 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:19:28 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATE: Q&A matrix for the operational
	communities' proposals v4
In-Reply-To: <01da01d0c5c5$9efb1a70$dcf14f50$@icgsec.asia>
References: <01da01d0c5c5$9efb1a70$dcf14f50$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <FD9DE877-9263-47D8-A7F5-B714F22454BA@cooperw.in>

I’ve done some editing in the attached and tried to deal with the highlighted items.

Alissa


On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
>  
> Please find v4 of the matrix attached and linked – Dropbox: http://icgsec.asia/1JBWMq6
>  
> I have highlighted entries for your attention in the Names proposal section.  Please let me know if there are edits to be made for this matrix – I note that there is a placeholder in the ICG report for this matrix which has not been approved for publication yet.
>  
> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>  
> Please let me know if there are any questions.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
>  
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 11:55 PM
> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Q&A matrix for the operational communities' proposals
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Per the open action item the Secretariat has taken, attached and linked below is the Q&A matrix for all three operational communities’ proposals.  I note that there are questions that are unresolved right now (the document title should probably change).
>  
> Matrix v3: http://icgsec.asia/1HF15zD
>  
> Please note that I have moved the original matrix v2 from its location in the ‘FAQ’ subfolder to the ‘Evaluation’ subfolder here:https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Evaluation
>  
> Please let me know if there are any questions or edits that need to be made.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Jennifer
>  
>  
> <Summary of internally resolved questions-v4.xlsx>_______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/b2a7ce41/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of internally resolved questions-v4-ALC.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 18834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/b2a7ce41/attachment.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/b2a7ce41/attachment-0001.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Jul 28 17:55:49 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:55:49 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal v6-clean
Message-ID: <00c701d0c95e$a42807a0$ec7816e0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Attached and linked is the clean version of the combined proposal v6 for
your ease of review in advance of the ICG call.  This version includes all
edits in the frozen version v6-MI-KA-ALC and also incorporates the frozen
version of the executive summary rev-1-MI-ALC.

 

The formatting, paragraph numbering and page numbering should be correct in
this version, page footer has also be changed in reference to the document
title.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1GZ90Hs 

 

Please note the following questions:

-          The appendices B and C in the IETF proposal have originally left
out due to duplication and length (see pp. 197-198) - I can insert a link to
the published ICG document if applicable

-          Appendix D in the IETF proposal (see p. 199) references the
entire completed ICG response - we might need a line or two to close the
reference?

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/3f09ecfc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v6-clean-2015-07-28.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1442304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/3f09ecfc/attachment.doc>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Jul 28 20:29:16 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:29:16 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] text for P0.IV.D.6
Message-ID: <75A2C6EB-C41C-4918-B6B5-E3C92A86BBD0@cooperw.in>

Section P0.IV.D.6 of the proposal has a placeholder for a bit of text about why the names proposal does not transition oversight to a government or governmental entity, and specifically how ICANN is protected from government capture. Thanks to assistance from Lynn and Patrik I have drafted two sentences for this (last two sentences below, with the whole paragraph included for context):

"The names proposal replaces NTIA’s various roles as they relate to the naming functions with the combination of ICANN, the CSC, and the IFR, none of which are governments or inter-governmental organizations. Establishing the PTI as an affiliate of ICANN allows the community to rely on ICANN’s accountability mechanisms and safeguards to prevent capture, including by governments. These include bylaws provisions that prevent officials from governments or treaty organizations from serving as voting members of the ICANN Board and limit governments to an advisory role within ICANN through the GAC. Furthermore, leadership positions within ICANN's advisory committees and supporting organizations as well as Board seats are time-limited and selected via processes that rely on input from a wide variety of stakeholders.”

Did not want to add this to the document since it is frozen before the call but wanted to share this on the list so people can see it.

Alissa

From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 28 23:16:49 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:16:49 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group
In-Reply-To: <b0213d775fe4422abe62d851026394e9@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <b0213d775fe4422abe62d851026394e9@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <1822904311.4603795.1438125409821.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

The information is already in the public domain of AFTLD, will be forwarding  to the internet stakeholders, NG IGF mailing list as well as  the Africa IGF mailing list as soon as time and date are determined. 
IANA transition is a session in the forthcoming AFIGF 2015 and I have volunteered to panel.
I will also like non-english speaking African ccTLDs to be factored in while planning for the webinars, thankfully Jean-Jacques is available to help. 

Mary Uduma





 


     On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 2:37 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
   

 I have shared the most recent translated timeline on the GAC, GAC-Africa, Arab ICANN & Arab IGF mailing lists; and was planning to do the same with the webinar info and material as well as the later recordings .. I can also reach out to the MENOG & the Middle East DNS Forum mailing lists ..
On the other hand, I was also approached, along with Mohamed El-Bashir, to participate to a regional webinar on 18 August at 12:00 UTC .. 

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 2:48 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Comms questions for the group

On Jul 28, 2015, at 12:05 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 
> 2. What outreach are you planning to do in your community/constituency regarding the public comment period? At a minimum we'd like to encourage you all to re-tweet/re-post/forward the ICG announcements relating to the public comment launch and the webinars. If you are planning to do that or any other additional outreach, speaking events, consultations, etc., please let the rest of us know by responding to this message.
> 

Hi Alissa, all,

I certainly will use my personal network and I can also work with the IGF secretariat to promote through their channels.  That will get broad coverage from civil society and many governments.

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


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/781f03e4/attachment.html>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Tue Jul 28 23:46:43 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:46:43 +0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] Review of combined proposal v6-clean
In-Reply-To: <00c701d0c95e$a42807a0$ec7816e0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00c701d0c95e$a42807a0$ec7816e0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <9BF85ED6-5B89-4486-8EB2-3C3338CE11A1@piuha.net>

I have reviewed the text. I am OK with the coming from the ICG, but I
made a couple of suggested editorial improvements and a few comments,
primarily for clarity.

I have copied a revised document to Dropbox in the Combined Proposal folder.
The file name is:

   combined-proposal-v6-clean-2015-07-28-comments-by-jariarkko.doc

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/5caf524d/attachment.sig>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 29 02:05:24 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:05:24 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - set of minutes from the ICG
	F2F Meeting 5
Message-ID: <019e01d0c9a3$0929c910$1b7d5b30$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

These minutes attached and linked were slated for discussion and approval
for the last call and also this call.  

 

ICG F2F Meeting 5 minutes Day 1v1: http://icgsec.asia/1NO0O1W 

ICG F2F Meeting 5 minutes Day 2v2: http://icgsec.asia/1h44DWA 

ICG Meeting 5 wrap up session minutes v2: http://icgsec.asia/1LVXm8p 

 

I have included minor edits to Day 2 and the Wrap-up session as requested by
Jean-Jacques below:

 

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Hello Jennifer, am reading minutes from Day 2. About
Comms, could you please add "Subrenat volunteered to produce, within 2 days,
a first draft of a Communications Strategy for the ICG. His offer was
accepted". Thanks. Likewise, a shorter mention under Summary of Action
Items. Thanks.

 

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: And for Wrap Up day, under "Thoughts from ICANN
meetings", please correct my statement by DELETING the word "not" at line 6.
Thus, please read "Subrenat mentioned that in response, CCWG co-chair Weill
pointed out it was the CCWG's job to sense what was coming from the
communities, and the US Government would have to face up to the fact there
is opposition to a certain type of solution."

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/a9718e79/attachment.html>
-------------- 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/a9718e79/attachment.docx>
-------------- 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/a9718e79/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38491 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/a9718e79/attachment-0002.docx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 29 02:09:28 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:09:28 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 9 July 2015 Teleconference (ICG Call
	19)
Message-ID: <01a401d0c9a3$9a57ec50$cf07c4f0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find attached and linked the minutes to ICG Call 19.

 

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1VMlTzG 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/54d7f0df/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: minutes-teleconference-9-july-2015-draft.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 64116 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150728/54d7f0df/attachment.docx>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Wed Jul 29 04:07:35 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:07:35 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Review of combined proposal v6-clean
In-Reply-To: <9BF85ED6-5B89-4486-8EB2-3C3338CE11A1@piuha.net>
References: <00c701d0c95e$a42807a0$ec7816e0$@icgsec.asia>
	<9BF85ED6-5B89-4486-8EB2-3C3338CE11A1@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <662CC64D-D579-488D-B2FD-8A20583A77B6@apnic.net>

I’ve added a “-pw” version of Jari’s file, with a few further comments (and format fixes), mostly on the Exec Summary.

Paul.


On 29 Jul 2015, at 9:46, Jari Arkko wrote:

> I have reviewed the text. I am OK with the coming from the ICG, but I
> made a couple of suggested editorial improvements and a few comments,
> primarily for clarity.
>
> I have copied a revised document to Dropbox in the Combined Proposal folder.
> The file name is:
>
> combined-proposal-v6-clean-2015-07-28-comments-by-jariarkko.doc
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3582 bytes
Desc: S/MIME digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/6514bdc8/attachment.p7s>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Wed Jul 29 04:56:50 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:56:50 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes for approval - set of minutes from the
 ICG F2F Meeting 5
In-Reply-To: <019e01d0c9a3$0929c910$1b7d5b30$@icgsec.asia>
References: <019e01d0c9a3$0929c910$1b7d5b30$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <387782EF-7D77-4B0F-B692-F2C05354667A@apnic.net>

Jennifer, thanks.

A very small point is that I was an onsite at the wrap-up session on 
Thursday (not a remote participant).

Otherwise, I agree to this set of minutes.

Paul



On 29 Jul 2015, at 12:05, Jennifer Chung wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> These minutes attached and linked were slated for discussion and 
> approval
> for the last call and also this call.
>
>
>
> ICG F2F Meeting 5 minutes Day 1v1: http://icgsec.asia/1NO0O1W
>
> ICG F2F Meeting 5 minutes Day 2v2: http://icgsec.asia/1h44DWA
>
> ICG Meeting 5 wrap up session minutes v2: http://icgsec.asia/1LVXm8p
>
>
>
> I have included minor edits to Day 2 and the Wrap-up session as 
> requested by
> Jean-Jacques below:
>
>
>
> Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Hello Jennifer, am reading minutes from Day 2. 
> About
> Comms, could you please add "Subrenat volunteered to produce, within 2 
> days,
> a first draft of a Communications Strategy for the ICG. His offer was
> accepted". Thanks. Likewise, a shorter mention under Summary of Action
> Items. Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jean-Jacques Subrenat: And for Wrap Up day, under "Thoughts from ICANN
> meetings", please correct my statement by DELETING the word "not" at 
> line 6.
> Thus, please read "Subrenat mentioned that in response, CCWG co-chair 
> Weill
> pointed out it was the CCWG's job to sense what was coming from the
> communities, and the US Government would have to face up to the fact 
> there
> is opposition to a certain type of solution."
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
> [minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day1-18-june-2015-v1.docx]
>
> [minutes-fifth-f2f-meeting-day2-19-june-2015-v2.docx]
>
> [minutes-fifth-f2f-wrapsession-25-june-2015-v2.docx]
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Jul 29 04:55:57 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:55:57 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Small comments on the proposal v6
Message-ID: <20150729045557.GA3536@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

Here are a few trivial issues that I noticed in the proposal v6:

* In the doument metadata (which you get to via the File -> Properties
menu, or something similar), the document title is listed as "CRISP Team
Proposal".  It should be the same as the title on the title page, or an
abbreviation of that.

* In the diagram in paragraph 2 (Percentage of IANA requests per area in
2014), the percentage for number-related requests is wrong.  5
requests out of 5253ia about 0.1%, not 0.001%.

* On the title page, I suggest adding an author name.  The ICG would be
the author.

--apb (Alan Barrett)


From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Wed Jul 29 06:58:30 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:58:30 +0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <EB371C12-3CA0-4C2D-BDB0-F778608939C8@piuha.net>

I’m now finally getting to this, given that last week my time was burned in the IETF.

The slide deck looks very good, IMO.

A couple of minor comments, none blocking:

On slide 6, I think the timeline changing to blue in 2015 is kind of confusing. For me, at least.

Somewhere, perhaps on slide 10, I get a feeling that someone should say “it is a clerical function”… but maybe that is spoken.

In the IETF part of the deck, we talked at some point about having a visualisation of the minor changes (the “expectations”) in the form of an add-on to the existing contracts and SLAs.  Somehow felt that would still be useful.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/81575e25/attachment.sig>

From narelle.clark at accan.org.au  Wed Jul 29 07:09:21 2015
From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:09:21 +1000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Small comments on the proposal v6
In-Reply-To: <20150729045557.GA3536@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
References: <20150729045557.GA3536@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBB6E612@ACCAN01.accan.local>


Here is my suggested text in response to Martin's observations on the tone.

For Part II Process Summary 
Para 04

In order to appropriately reflect the existing operational model underpinning IANA, the proposal has been developed by soliciting and then bringing together discrete proposals from the three operational communities. Having the three communities develop their own proposals was considered necessary to protect the integrity of each community's consensus-based submission, given the responsibilities that exist in these communities. The ICG considers it inappropriate to override such consensus and also inefficient for the ICG to merge the three proposals for streamlining purposes and subsequently have the communities re-run their consensus processes. 


But I understand this paragraph has now been deleted.

Narelle


-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alan Barrett
Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2015 2:56 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Small comments on the proposal v6

Here are a few trivial issues that I noticed in the proposal v6:

* In the doument metadata (which you get to via the File -> Properties menu, or something similar), the document title is listed as "CRISP Team Proposal".  It should be the same as the title on the title page, or an abbreviation of that.

* In the diagram in paragraph 2 (Percentage of IANA requests per area in 2014), the percentage for number-related requests is wrong.  5 requests out of 5253ia about 0.1%, not 0.001%.

* On the title page, I suggest adding an author name.  The ICG would be the author.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at ianacg.org
http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From housley at vigilsec.com  Wed Jul 29 07:11:44 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:11:44 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] UPDATE: Q&A matrix for the operational
	communities' proposals v4
In-Reply-To: <FD9DE877-9263-47D8-A7F5-B714F22454BA@cooperw.in>
References: <01da01d0c5c5$9efb1a70$dcf14f50$@icgsec.asia>
	<FD9DE877-9263-47D8-A7F5-B714F22454BA@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <DC807AE2-E149-4448-9A40-771381A8352A@vigilsec.com>

Protocol Parameters 2.3 says: "The IAOC has taken that preference from the IETF community and put forward some draft language that it sent to ICANN.  This is currently under legal review with ICANN to see if it will be added to the SLA that will be signed in the next few weeks. (Housley)"

That has not been signed yet. I suggest that "in the next few weeks" be changed to "as part of the implementation phase"

Russ



On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> I’ve done some editing in the attached and tried to deal with the highlighted items.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> <Summary of internally resolved questions-v4-ALC.xlsx>
> 
> On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>>  
>> Please find v4 of the matrix attached and linked – Dropbox: http://icgsec.asia/1JBWMq6
>>  
>> I have highlighted entries for your attention in the Names proposal section.  Please let me know if there are edits to be made for this matrix – I note that there is a placeholder in the ICG report for this matrix which has not been approved for publication yet.
>>  
>> As always, the latest versions of all the public comment related documents for your review is in this Dropbox folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>  
>> Please let me know if there are any questions.
>>  
>> Best Regards,
>>  
>> Jennifer
>>  
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 11:55 PM
>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Q&A matrix for the operational communities' proposals
>>  
>> Dear All,
>>  
>> Per the open action item the Secretariat has taken, attached and linked below is the Q&A matrix for all three operational communities’ proposals.  I note that there are questions that are unresolved right now (the document title should probably change).
>>  
>> Matrix v3: http://icgsec.asia/1HF15zD
>>  
>> Please note that I have moved the original matrix v2 from its location in the ‘FAQ’ subfolder to the ‘Evaluation’ subfolder here:https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Evaluation
>>  
>> Please let me know if there are any questions or edits that need to be made.
>>  
>> Best Regards,
>>  
>> Jennifer
>>  
>>  
>> <Summary of internally resolved questions-v4.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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/2ac5c625/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 29 07:43:20 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:43:20 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 21 Attendance list and Chat Transcript
Message-ID: <022701d0c9d2$3ecafd30$bc60f790$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call
(below).  Please let me know if you note any discrepancies. Thank you!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

-----

ICG Members:

Alan Barrett (NRO)

Alissa Cooper (IETF)

Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)

Demi Getschko (ISOC)

Hartmut Glaser (ASO)

Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)

Jari Arkko (IETF)

Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)

Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)

Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)

Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)

Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)

Lynn St Amour (IAB) 

Martin Boyle (ccNSO)

Manal Ismail (GAC)

Mary Uduma (ccNSO)

Michael Niebel (GAC)

Narelle Clark (ISOC)

Paul Wilson (NRO)

Patrik Fältström (SSAC)

Russ Mundy (SSAC)

Russ Housley (IAB)

Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)

 

Liaisons

Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)

Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison)

 

Apologies 

James Bladel (GNSO)

Keith Davidson (ccNSO)

Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)

Milton Mueller (GNSO)

Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)

Thomas Schneider (GAC)

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/d09b10e1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Call 21 Chat transcript.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 303086 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/d09b10e1/attachment.pdf>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 08:46:12 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 01:46:12 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
Message-ID: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>

Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the call. There are three items not yet reflected:

— Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan
— Changes to the visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy
— Text related to NTIA’s authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin

I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate to the public comment web site.

We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.

Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.

Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.

Thanks,
Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v7.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1435136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/df2e29dd/attachment.doc>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 29 09:22:40 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 05:22:40 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 21: Action items and decisions taken
Message-ID: <025401d0c9e0$1ee11870$5ca34950$@icgsec.asia>

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/3004de5e/attachment.html>

From apb at cequrux.com  Wed Jul 29 09:29:31 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:29:31 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <20150729092931.GB1438@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>
>— Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan
>— Changes to the visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy
>— Text related to NTIA’s authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>

In the visual summary diagram, please also add a key to explain the
colours.

--apb (Alan Barrett)


From fmniebel at gmail.com  Wed Jul 29 11:48:31 2015
From: fmniebel at gmail.com (michael niebel)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:48:31 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action 7 of today's call
Message-ID: <CAMK78HXE_uqMSrd22_zPgezG9WQrboAGTzJrRdYbdU6iOFbtiA@mail.gmail.com>

---Point 2.3 of the matrix deals with P3.III. of the Response from Protocol
Parameters Registries Community, (Number 3062) and notably "Transition to
Success Contractor" C.7.3 and "Continuity of Services" I. 61 of the current
IANA functions contract.

I find the present formulation of the question not easy to understand and
therefore have tried to inject some clarifying elements . Please find below
my proposal.

2.3
"Is it the preference of the IETF community to replace by a simple
acknowledgement the obligations of ICANN established under C7-3 and I.61 of
the current IANA functions contract to achieve a smooth transition to
subsequent operators, should the need arise? Given that these obligations
are not part of the MoU, is such a light declaration legally sufficient to
satisfy the need for stability and continuity ?"

----Point 2.5 seems to me already  covered by point 2.3 ., as formulated
above. I would see no added value in it and propose to delete it.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/621a6ddd/attachment.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul 29 11:49:45 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:49:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADCA0E@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

My apologies to colleagues – I have not found the more positive text on not replacing the administrative and clerical oversight role of NTIA for changes to the root-zone content & WHOIS databases that I thought was in the CWG proposal.  I was sure it was in an annex!  Blame short-term memory loss ☹

The point I was trying to make was that, while the independent NTIA role was not being transferred to a new entity (the issue is one of introducing a new gatekeeper), this does not limit the responsibility of the PTI for ensuring that its changes are accurate and properly authorised through its own procedures (and, as necessary, with the procedures of the root-zone maintainer).  But errors would be subject to the defined emergency procedures and would be reported for discussion with the CSC.  I’d also note the idea of a formal study (paragraph 1150 3 a-d) post transition to assess whether additional changes are needed.

So sorry for wasting your time on this – I don’t like the negative language (that we are discontinuing a role) unqualified by the reasons for discontinuation, but fault of finding existing wording, I back down.

Martin

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 29 July 2015 09:46
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review

Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the call. There are three items not yet reflected:

— Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan
— Changes to the visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy
— Text related to NTIA’s authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin

I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate to the public comment web site.

We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.

Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.

Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.

Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/0093ebad/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 12:52:16 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 05:52:16 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <20150729092931.GB1438@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<20150729092931.GB1438@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Message-ID: <A5C87FBD-2750-4AF8-A4B4-02F99A790557@cooperw.in>

Good catch Alan, I did in fact include this request in my email back to the designers but failed to list it below. Hopefully this will be forthcoming from them shortly.

Alissa

On Jul 29, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>> 
>> — Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan
>> — Changes to the visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy
>> — Text related to NTIA’s authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>> 
> 
> In the visual summary diagram, please also add a key to explain the
> colours.
> 
> --apb (Alan Barrett)



From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 13:18:49 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:18:49 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck
Message-ID: <E7C6C6DC-9CF9-47ED-B6A7-011A5A4CC3CF@cooperw.in>

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

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 13:41:49 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:41:49 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <55B3F3A6.3000805@oracle.com>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<55B3F3A6.3000805@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <3DAAB064-BA0E-4039-A8DC-7DB4EB00AB84@cooperw.in>

Hi Joe,

The IANA department will fold into the PTI, which is why the IANA box disappears. So that is by design. This will of course be explained by the speaker. Does that make sense or is there some visual change to the slides that you think would help?

Thanks,
Alissa

On Jul 25, 2015, at 1:37 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> On slides 11/12/13 the disappearance of IANA from the slide as an Icon may confuse people... Otherwise looks good.
> 
> On 7/24/2015 3:52 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
>> 
>> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
>> 
>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/a010295b/attachment.html>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Wed Jul 29 14:05:14 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:05:14 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 21: Action items and decisions taken
In-Reply-To: <025401d0c9e0$1ee11870$5ca34950$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <25223642.949.1438178712857.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

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" <jen at icgsec.asia>
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


From jjs at dyalog.net  Wed Jul 29 14:13:39 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:13:39 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 9 July 2015 Teleconference (ICG
 Call	19)
In-Reply-To: <01a401d0c9a3$9a57ec50$cf07c4f0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <28329131.1179.1438179218325.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

No objection from me. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.









----- Mail original -----
De: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 29 Juillet 2015 04:09:28
Objet: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 9 July 2015 Teleconference (ICG Call	19)





Dear All, 



Please find attached and linked the minutes to ICG Call 19. 



Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1VMlTzG 



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


From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 14:28:51 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:28:51 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <57A07AFF-12F3-4B57-A7FE-50E4494D2D47@cooperw.in>

Hi Russ,

Responding below on a few points.

On Jul 26, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
>> 
>> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Overall, the draft slide deck is a very good presentation.  I think that XPLANE did an excellent job of incorporating a large, diverse amount of information into a very reasonable number of slides.  The set of changes that I'm suggesting here intended are to improve the accuracy and/or clarity of the content of the slide deck.
> 
> First, some general suggestions:
> 
> - The use of different colors for the different OC and combined proposals is excellent - I think that it would be good to use a similar background shading or a object fill color for the operational community proposals throughout the deck.

I’m not sure I understand. The objects already are color-coded throughout the deck. I.e., parameters are light blue, numbers are green, and names are purple.

> 
> - At some point, the deck should mention that IANA operations need to continue to operate stably, securely and resiliently through all transitiion activities.  Although it was not explicitly mentioned, it was inferred in the March 2014 announcement so perhaps slide 5 could add the following in the left column:
> 
> "The IANA functions must continue to operate securely, stably and resiliently through entire process of transition.”

I would not feel comfortable putting this text there because it does not actually appear in the NTIA announcement. I agree that this is important but I don’t think we should attribute it to NTIA in that way. Maybe we could write “Continued security, stability and resilience of the IANA functions” along the bottom of slide 6?

> 
> Secondly, some specific suggestions for individual slides.  I tried to minimize the structural changes to the slides so the suggestions would be straight forward to incorporate - or reject:
> 
> - Slide 3:  At the top of the slide, the Operational Communitees should be shown seperately - perhaps with a surrounding box indicating "IANA Customers".   Suggest using "Names Community" (also change Slide 10), "Numbers Community" (also change Slide 19) and "Protocol Parameters Community" (perhaps change Slide 25).

Since this is the very first substantive slide, I’m not sure it makes sense to dive right into that level of detail. Furthermore, this would be hard to depict for protocol parameters since lots of registries can be populated by anyone who wants to register something and those people may not really consider themselves part of the “protocol parameters community.” I’d rather opt for simplicity in slide 3.

Slide 10: changing to “Names community” seems fine

Slide 19: this slide comes from the CRISP team so I’m reluctant to change how they have labelled the diagram.

Slide 25: In this case it is the IETF that is the entity with relationships to IANA/ICANN, so I would again be reluctant to change this.

> 
> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).

Agree — “make requests” is generic and the speaker can explain what that means.

> 
> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
> 
> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
> 
> --- Change "Numbers Database" to "Numbers Information" 
> 
> --- Change "Protocol Database" to "Protocol Parameters Registries”

My proposal would be to strike all three instances of the word “Database.” So the labels would just be “Names,” “Numbers” and “Protocol Parameters.” The speaker can explain what the repositories are that are depicted by the black boxes.

> 
> -- It's unclear what the three devices at the bottom of the slide represent but I think they are intended to indicate those that use information maintained and provided by IANA.  If this is a correct interpretation, suggest adding text under the devices that says (something like): "Consumbers = Any Internet User"  or something equivalent

I think this is something the speaker can explain, i.e., that the identifiers get used in software running on Internet users’ devices.

> 
> - Slide 5: see second general comment above.
> 
> - There should be a slide added between the current slide 8 and slide 9 that actually says what the IANA names functions are - the illustrations of current slides 9 and 10 are examples of data but do not show what is involved with maintenance of the DNS Root Zone.  I suggest that text list be derived from the recent ICANN publication "The IANA Functions - An Introduction to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions" from the lists on pages 14, 17 & 18  that is available at:
> 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-functions-15jun15-en.pdf
> 
> Other potential sources for the list of functions are the Names proposal paragraph P1.I.A. (1003)  or SSAC reports SAC-067 and SAC-068

Could you provide exactly the list of bullets you would want to see?

> 
> - Slide 11 suggest changing "Customers" to "Names Community”

This is another slide that comes directly from one of the OCs (the CWG), so I’m reluctant to suggest a change.

> 
> - Slide 15 only lists 6 of the 7 items the CWG said their proposal depended on the CCWG results - item 5 (Separation Process) is not currently listed and should be.

I would propose to add a box with the following text after the CSC box:

“Empowerment of the Special IFR to determine that a separation process is necessary” 

with “separation process” in bold

> 
> - Slide 19 has an * after "Service level Agreement" and "Review Performance" on the right side of the slide with no explanation.  I would suggest dropping the * or adding some descriptive text.

Agree, this is left over from an earlier version.

> 
> - Slide 28 (simple change) change "vmetrics" to "metrics”.

Good catch.

> 
> - Slide 28 provides an excellent overview of providing an overall illustration of the oversight and accountability aspects of the three operational communities.  However, it does not show any of the regular, on-going interactions of the OCs.  It is, in fact, a very different perspective on the IANA functions than is provided in Slide 3.  This could incorrectly infer that the OCs proposals and transition will result in massive changes from how things work today.  To avoid this incorrect inference, I would suggest that the section needs to either have two slides, one to illustrate how the regular, on-going functions are accomplished by replicating Slide 3 or add text to the current slide that says "this illustrates accountability and oversight" and points to Slide 3 as the illustration of the regular, on-going functions.

Per our discussion on the call, would it work for you if we title this slide “Oversight components in the combined proposal”?

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> 
> Thoughts & responses from others are certainly welcome,
> 
> Russ M
> 
> 



From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul 29 15:07:06 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:07:06 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 21: Action items and decisions taken
In-Reply-To: <25223642.949.1438178712857.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <025401d0c9e0$1ee11870$5ca34950$@icgsec.asia>
	<25223642.949.1438178712857.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADCF74@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

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" <jen at icgsec.asia>
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

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 15:21:12 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:21:12 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADCF74@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
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>
Message-ID: <20A6C3A3-06A3-48E3-A306-41425149F70D@cooperw.in>

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 <Country/economy name> - <two letters>. 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 <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> 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" <jen at icgsec.asia>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/0afeab6a/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 15:24:04 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:24:04 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <6A1198E0-C2ED-4CC6-9BFB-901B39DBDB1A@apnic.net>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<6A1198E0-C2ED-4CC6-9BFB-901B39DBDB1A@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <6CF33F40-01B7-4263-AEFE-BD1A47C93CCE@cooperw.in>


On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> I agree this presentation looks very good.
> 
> A few more comments:
> 
> - There is an inconsistency in labels used for “Protocol Parameters”
> e.g.
> Slide 3: “Protocol Database”
> Slide 6: “Protocol”
> Slide 28: “Parameters Functions”

I suggest deleting all the instances of “database” on slide 3 and changing “Protocol” to “Protocol parameters” on slide 6.

> 
> - It is good to have the slides covering “What are the IANA functions related to X” at the start of each section, but there is an inconsistency in the way this information is presented.  Slides 9 and 10 work well to illustrate the domain of the Names functions and then the “flow of control”, but this format is not repeated for Numbers and Protocols.
> 
> For Numbers I suggest to replace slide 18 with 2 slides: first to explain the numbers resources as IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs; and then to show the “flow” of allocations of IP and ASN blocks to the RIRs.  

I’ve done a very crude mock-up in the attached — is this roughly what you were thinking? I think this could be included at the bottom of slide 18.

> For Protocol Parameters, Slide 24 could be split and explained in a similar way.

The IETF folks did a thorough review of the slides so I’m reluctant to change them.

> 
> I also note that the label referring to “IANA Customers” appears in slide 3 and then again in slide 10, but never again after that.  I suggest that while the general reference is OK on Slide 3, it should become something more specific when it comes to explaining the customers of the 3 communities - i.e. TLD Registries, RIRs, and IETF respectively.

Re slide 11, see my comment to Russ. “Customers” is language from the CWG review of the slides, so I’m reluctant to change it. I think otherwise the terms RIRs and IETF are used in the rest of the deck but if you have specific changes to suggest, please indicate which slides should change.

> 
> - The inclusion of Slides 15 and 16 in the Names section could be confusing.  It is there not because CCWG is specific to names, but because of the dependency of the CWG proposal on that accountability result.  Even though this would be explained by the presenter, I think it needs to be clearer in the slides to avoid confusion. For instance, with an explanatory slide before current Slide 15.

What would you include on the explanatory slide? 

> 
> - I like the use of different colours for the different communities; but i observe that the difference is quite subtle and might not be well resolved by all viewers and even by all displays/projectors.  I would suggest to adjust those colours to make them more distinct (also not to use blue for the Protocol Parameters since it does not stand out from the overall blue theme of the presentation).

We have asked previously about changing the colors, but the design firm is reluctant to do this. The OC slides in this deck are part of lengthier decks developed about each OC proposal, so the colors here are consistent with the colors there. I think we should stick with the current color scheme given that context.

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> That’s all for now,
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> On 25 Jul 2015, at 5:52, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
>> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
>> 
>> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> 
>> [XPL_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_Summary_03e.pdf]
>> 
>> [public-comment-webinar-outline-v1.docx]
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RIRs flow.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29966 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/a278d4bf/attachment.pdf>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Wed Jul 29 16:24:31 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:24:31 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 9 July 2015 Teleconference (ICG
 Call 19)
In-Reply-To: <01a401d0c9a3$9a57ec50$cf07c4f0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <01a401d0c9a3$9a57ec50$cf07c4f0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADE21B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Just a couple of minor typo nit-pickings from me in Dropbox and attached..

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: 29 July 2015 03:09
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 9 July 2015 Teleconference (ICG Call 19)

Dear All,

Please find attached and linked the minutes to ICG Call 19.

Dropbox link: http://icgsec.asia/1VMlTzG

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/3022415f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: minutes-teleconference-9-july-2015-draft + MB.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 69070 bytes
Desc: minutes-teleconference-9-july-2015-draft + MB.docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/3022415f/attachment.docx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 16:46:44 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:46:44 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
	<1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8CEBB087-9EDA-4435-86D3-CFE2A9964A99@cooperw.in>

Hi Mary,

On Jul 27, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:

> All,
> Quite happy with the webinar deck. In addition to the points already raised by others, I wish to suggest the following
> 1. Explanation of the lines, the straight and the broken ones. (New Comers)

> 2. Few of the acronyms in the diagram be explained for the uninformed. 

Good idea. I think we can expand some acronyms on slide 4 and 18.

> 3  Further adjustment on slide 28 regarding the numbers and the protocol relationship with the ICANN and IFO. While the Protocol shows connection from IETF pointing  to PTI (Vmetrics), the Numbers (Review Performance) points  to ICANN.
> There is no  broken line between the Numbers and PTI unlike the Names and the Protocols diagrams.
> I am glad to receive clarifications, if I am wrong on my point 3.

The diagram accurately reflects the expected post-transition arrangements as far as I know. It has been vetted with folks from both the numbers and protocol parameters communities.

> 
> By the way, would the deck be adjusted for each audience? When addressing community like the ccTLDs for example.

What sort of adjustments are you thinking about?

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> Great work, folks.
> 
> Mary Uduma
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 27, 2015 5:59 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> 
> > For slide 3, let’s rely on the term “Registry” rather than “Database” or “Info”.  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of structure and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.
> 
> I agree that Registry is the commonly used term in the Numbers and Protocol Parameters realms but not in the Names realm.
> 
> > 
> > For numbers, the label should be “Numbers Registries”, like “Protocol Parameters Registries”.
> 
> I would be fine with these terms for those two OCs.
> 
> > 
> > Personally I also prefer “Names Registries” or “Root Zone Registry” - but I would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.
> 
> The highly visible DNS information handled and published by IANA is predominantly related to the Root Zone and (as Patrik points out) is generally of two types, i.e., direct Root Zone content related info and whois info.  The whois info could be considered a ‘registry’ but that’s not how it is usually referred to, it’s simply called ‘whois’ information.
> 
> The Root Zone content information handled by IANA in filling it’s role in the Root Zone Management process is not 'IANA registry’ information like the Numbers and Protocol Parameters OCs. There are multiple reasons for this not the least of which is that IANA is not the authoritative source of this information in the running DNS.  The root name servers provide the authoritative root zone information for the running DNS and they receive the zone content from Verisign in their role as Root Zone Maintainer.  So in addition to the Root Zone not being like Registries in the Names and Protocol Parameters OCs, the Root Zone in the running DNS is not usually thought of or described as an IANA Registry.
> 
> I don’t think that the slide deck should try to differentiate between Root Zone content and whois information but I think we need a single, collective term or phrase that describes both types of information - (probably obvious) I don’t think ‘Root Zone Registries’ is the a viable phrase, I hope we can come up with a better one.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> > 
> > Paul.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> >> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Folks,
> >> 
> >> I have a few comments on this...
> >> 
> >>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).
> >> 
> >> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
> >> 
> >>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
> >> 
> >> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and specifically:
> >> 
> >>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
> >> 
> >> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service and not the root zone.
> >> 
> >> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the slide deck too much.
> >> 
> >> Patrik
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/531763d4/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 16:51:47 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:51:47 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <D1DCE778.37EAD%elise.gerich@icann.org>
References: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
	<1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<D1DBAEE2.37E04%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADADD0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<D1DCE778.37EAD%elise.gerich@icann.org>
Message-ID: <37E18A75-BE56-4575-9035-1DC46583101C@cooperw.in>

Hi Elise, all,

This text came from the slides that the CWG co-chairs used in Buenos Aires.

Would it make sense to say the following instead?

"Established to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA naming functions."

Or, we could take words directly from paragraph 106 of the CWG proposal:

“Established to monitor the performance of the IANA naming functions and escalate non-remediated issues."

Thoughts?

Alissa

On Jul 28, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation that the CWG proposal does not replace the NTIA’s operational authorization role.  
> 
> Perhaps the slide deck could be revised to remove the text that indicates that the CSC was “established to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by the U.S. Government.” That would avoid any possible misinterpretation that the CSC would have an active role in operations.
> 
> -- Elise 
> 
> 
> From: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:47 AM
> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>, Paul	Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
> 
>> Hi Elise,
>>  
>> No!  This would be a change from the CWG’s proposal.  The CWG’s approach was to avoid replacing the NTIA’s administrative and clerical role by something that might become a gatekeeper.
>>  
>> There is an authorisation role for more changes affecting root-zone management architecture and operation (such as, in the past, the introduction of DNSSEC), but that was more about a process for such changes – documented in the section at paragraph 154 et seq.
>>  
>> Hope this helps, Elise,
>>  
>> Martin
>>  
>>  
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich
>> Sent: 27 July 2015 17:54
>> To: Mary Uduma; Russ Mundy; Paul Wilson
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
>>  
>> All,
>>  
>> Slide 13 states that the mission of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) is “Established to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by the U.S. Government, ensure continues satisfactory performance of the IANA naming function."
>>  
>> One of the operational responsibilities of NTIA today is to authorize changes to the root zone.  It was my understanding from the CWG proposal that the “authorization” responsibility of root zone changes would go away.  Is this slide implying that the CSC will have an operational role authorizing root zone changes?
>>  
>> Regards,
>> -- Elise 
>>  
>>  
>> From: Internal-cg <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org> on behalf of Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
>> Date: Monday, July 27, 2015 at 12:14 AM
>> To: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
>>  
>>> All,
>>> Quite happy with the webinar deck. In addition to the points already raised by others, I wish to suggest the following
>>> 1. Explanation of the lines, the straight and the broken ones. (New Comers)
>>> 2. Few of the acronyms in the diagram be explained for the uninformed.
>>> 3  Further adjustment on slide 28 regarding the numbers and the protocol relationship with the ICANN and IFO. While the Protocol shows connection from IETF pointing  to PTI (Vmetrics), the Numbers (Review Performance) points  to ICANN. There is no  broken line between the Numbers and PTI unlike the Names and the Protocols diagrams.
>>> I am glad to receive clarifications, if I am wrong on my point 3.
>>>  
>>> By the way, would the deck be adjusted for each audience? When addressing community like the ccTLDs for example.
>>>  
>>> Great work, folks.
>>>  
>>> Mary Uduma
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 27, 2015 5:59 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > For slide 3, let’s rely on the term “Registry” rather than “Database” or “Info”.  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of structure and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.
>>> 
>>> I agree that Registry is the commonly used term in the Numbers and Protocol Parameters realms but not in the Names realm.
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > For numbers, the label should be “Numbers Registries”, like “Protocol Parameters Registries”.
>>> 
>>> I would be fine with these terms for those two OCs.
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > Personally I also prefer “Names Registries” or “Root Zone Registry” - but I would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.
>>> 
>>> The highly visible DNS information handled and published by IANA is predominantly related to the Root Zone and (as Patrik points out) is generally of two types, i.e., direct Root Zone content related info and whois info.  The whois info could be considered a ‘registry’ but that’s not how it is usually referred to, it’s simply called ‘whois’ information.
>>> 
>>> The Root Zone content information handled by IANA in filling it’s role in the Root Zone Management process is not 'IANA registry’ information like the Numbers and Protocol Parameters OCs. There are multiple reasons for this not the least of which is that IANA is not the authoritative source of this information in the running DNS.  The root name servers provide the authoritative root zone information for the running DNS and they receive the zone content from Verisign in their role as Root Zone Maintainer.  So in addition to the Root Zone not being like Registries in the Names and Protocol Parameters OCs, the Root Zone in the running DNS is not usually thought of or described as an IANA Registry.
>>> 
>>> I don’t think that the slide deck should try to differentiate between Root Zone content and whois information but I think we need a single, collective term or phrase that describes both types of information - (probably obvious) I don’t think ‘Root Zone Registries’ is the a viable phrase, I hope we can come up with a better one.
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > Paul.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>> >> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
>>> >> 
>>> >>> Folks,
>>> >> 
>>> >> I have a few comments on this...
>>> >> 
>>> >>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).
>>> >> 
>>> >> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
>>> >> 
>>> >>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
>>> >> 
>>> >> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and specifically:
>>> >> 
>>> >>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
>>> >> 
>>> >> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service and not the root zone.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to complicated the slide deck too much.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Patrik
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/a13fb504/attachment.html>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Wed Jul 29 17:01:10 2015
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:01:10 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <20A6C3A3-06A3-48E3-A306-41425149F70D@cooperw.in>
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>
Message-ID: <82A385EB-ADDC-47CB-BEE6-4CD3B6A695AB@vigilsec.com>

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 <Country/economy name> - <two letters>. 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 <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> 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" <jen at icgsec.asia>
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/e53f6319/attachment.html>

From elise.gerich at icann.org  Wed Jul 29 17:04:02 2015
From: elise.gerich at icann.org (Elise Gerich)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:04:02 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <37E18A75-BE56-4575-9035-1DC46583101C@cooperw.in>
References: <9D328EA8-5A88-4458-8A48-DFCDFE05816D@tislabs.com>
	<1124129468.3342131.1437981290966.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<D1DBAEE2.37E04%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADADD0@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<D1DCE778.37EAD%elise.gerich@icann.org>
	<37E18A75-BE56-4575-9035-1DC46583101C@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <D1DE5543.37FCD%elise.gerich@icann.org>

Hi Alissa,

Thanks for proposing alternate text.  I think either of the two suggested
revisions would be an improvement.

-- Elise 


From:  Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Date:  Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:51 AM
To:  Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>
Cc:  Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>, Mary Uduma
<mnuduma at yahoo.com>, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>, Paul Wilson
<pwilson at apnic.net>, IANA etc etc Coordination Group
<internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject:  Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

> Hi Elise, all,
> 
> This text came from the slides that the CWG co-chairs used in Buenos Aires.
> 
> Would it make sense to say the following instead?
> 
> "Established to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA naming
> functions."
> 
> Or, we could take words directly from paragraph 106 of the CWG proposal:
> 
> ³Established to monitor the performance of the IANA naming functions and
> escalate non-remediated issues."
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Alissa
> 
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> Thanks for the confirmation that the CWG proposal does not replace the NTIA¹s
>> operational authorization role.
>> 
>> Perhaps the slide deck could be revised to remove the text that indicates
>> that the CSC was ³established to perform the operational responsibilities
>> previously performed by the U.S. Government.² That would avoid any possible
>> misinterpretation that the CSC would have an active role in operations.
>> 
>> -- Elise 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
>> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:47 AM
>> To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>,
>> Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
>> 
>>> Hi Elise,
>>>  
>>> No!  This would be a change from the CWG¹s proposal.  The CWG¹s approach was
>>> to avoid replacing the NTIA¹s administrative and clerical role by something
>>> that might become a gatekeeper.
>>>  
>>> There is an authorisation role for more changes affecting root-zone
>>> management architecture and operation (such as, in the past, the
>>> introduction of DNSSEC), but that was more about a process for such changes
>>> ­ documented in the section at paragraph 154 et seq.
>>>  
>>> Hope this helps, Elise,
>>>  
>>> Martin
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Elise
>>> Gerich
>>> Sent: 27 July 2015 17:54
>>> To: Mary Uduma; Russ Mundy; Paul Wilson
>>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
>>>  
>>> All,
>>>  
>>> Slide 13 states that the mission of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) is
>>> ³Established to perform the operational responsibilities previously
>>> performed by the U.S. Government, ensure continues satisfactory performance
>>> of the IANA naming function."
>>>  
>>> One of the operational responsibilities of NTIA today is to authorize
>>> changes to the root zone.  It was my understanding from the CWG proposal
>>> that the ³authorization² responsibility of root zone changes would go away.
>>> Is this slide implying that the CSC will have an operational role
>>> authorizing root zone changes?
>>>  
>>> Regards,
>>> -- Elise 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Internal-cg <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org> on behalf of Mary Uduma
>>> <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
>>> Date: Monday, July 27, 2015 at 12:14 AM
>>> To: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
>>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
>>>  
>>>> All,
>>>> Quite happy with the webinar deck. In addition to the points already raised
>>>> by others, I wish to suggest the following
>>>> 1. Explanation of the lines, the straight and the broken ones. (New Comers)
>>>> 2. Few of the acronyms in the diagram be explained for the uninformed.
>>>> 3  Further adjustment on slide 28 regarding the numbers and the protocol
>>>> relationship with the ICANN and IFO. While the Protocol shows connection
>>>> from IETF pointing  to PTI (Vmetrics), the Numbers (Review Performance)
>>>> points  to ICANN. There is no  broken line between the Numbers and PTI
>>>> unlike the Names and the Protocols diagrams.
>>>> I am glad to receive clarifications, if I am wrong on my point 3.
>>>>  
>>>> By the way, would the deck be adjusted for each audience? When addressing
>>>> community like the ccTLDs for example.
>>>>  
>>>> Great work, folks.
>>>>  
>>>> Mary Uduma
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> On Monday, July 27, 2015 5:59 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> > For slide 3, let¹s rely on the term ³Registry² rather than ³Database² or
>>>>> ³Info².  Registry is commonly used, and carries the implications of
>>>>> structure and purpose which are missing from the alternatives.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree that Registry is the commonly used term in the Numbers and Protocol
>>>> Parameters realms but not in the Names realm.
>>>> 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > For numbers, the label should be ³Numbers Registries², like ³Protocol
>>>>> Parameters Registries².
>>>> 
>>>> I would be fine with these terms for those two OCs.
>>>> 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Personally I also prefer ³Names Registries² or ³Root Zone Registry² -
>>>>> but I would defer to those responsible to make the call on that.
>>>> 
>>>> The highly visible DNS information handled and published by IANA is
>>>> predominantly related to the Root Zone and (as Patrik points out) is
>>>> generally of two types, i.e., direct Root Zone content related info and
>>>> whois info.  The whois info could be considered a Œregistry¹ but that¹s not
>>>> how it is usually referred to, it¹s simply called Œwhois¹ information.
>>>> 
>>>> The Root Zone content information handled by IANA in filling it¹s role in
>>>> the Root Zone Management process is not 'IANA registry¹ information like
>>>> the Numbers and Protocol Parameters OCs. There are multiple reasons for
>>>> this not the least of which is that IANA is not the authoritative source of
>>>> this information in the running DNS.  The root name servers provide the
>>>> authoritative root zone information for the running DNS and they receive
>>>> the zone content from Verisign in their role as Root Zone Maintainer.  So
>>>> in addition to the Root Zone not being like Registries in the Names and
>>>> Protocol Parameters OCs, the Root Zone in the running DNS is not usually
>>>> thought of or described as an IANA Registry.
>>>> 
>>>> I don¹t think that the slide deck should try to differentiate between Root
>>>> Zone content and whois information but I think we need a single, collective
>>>> term or phrase that describes both types of information - (probably
>>>> obvious) I don¹t think ŒRoot Zone Registries¹ is the a viable phrase, I
>>>> hope we can come up with a better one.
>>>> 
>>>> Russ
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Paul.
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > On 27 Jul 2015, at 9:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>>>> >> On 27 Jul 2015, at 0:27, Russ Mundy wrote:
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>>> >>> Folks,
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> I have a few comments on this...
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>>> >>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but
>>>>>>> not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also
>>>>>>> change Slide 10).
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> Hmmm....I think it is fair to say "change" as all requests do imply
>>>>>> changes to the "databases". Some are changes to the data, some are
>>>>>> unallocations and some are new allocations. But all are changes.
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>>> >>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in
>>>>>>> databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.
>>>>>>> This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the
>>>>>>> other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called
>>>>>>> "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> I am not as picky as you regarding the use of the term "database", and
>>>>>> specifically:
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>>> >>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change
>>>>>>> Slide 10)
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> ...I think this would be confusing as people might think all requests
>>>>>> related to names have to do with "the root zone", which I think it is
>>>>>> correct to say that some of the requests are related to the whois service
>>>>>> and not the root zone.
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> Now, whether "DNS root zone info" include not only the root zone
>>>>>> itself but also the whois database and other things, that is to
>>>>>> complicated the slide deck too much.
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> Patrik
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> 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  <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
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/0b66c385/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/0b66c385/attachment.p7s>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 29 20:11:42 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:11:42 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
- IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
- Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
(Alan's request)

Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh 
Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

I note that per Martin's previous response,
http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
no new text will be added to this particular section.

Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.

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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review

Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
call. There are three items not yet reflected:

- Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin

I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
to the public comment web site.

We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.

Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.

Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.

Thanks,
Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1564160 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/6e3a2584/attachment.doc>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Wed Jul 29 20:25:58 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:25:58 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <59B75680-8946-4C6D-BE32-93675213F060@LStAmour.org>

Thank you to Alissa and the secretariat for such a quick turnaround.  This is looking very good.

I suggested a few edits for clarity, with my goal to keep edits to a minimum.  The new doc. is in Dropbox (combined-proposal-v7- lsa).

Best regards,
Lynn


On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:11 PM, "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
> (Alan's request)
> 
> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh 
> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
> 
> I note that per Martin's previous response,
> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
> no new text will be added to this particular section.
> 
> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
> 
> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
> 
> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
> 
> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
> 
> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
> to the public comment web site.
> 
> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
> 
> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
> 
> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 29 20:29:10 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:29:10 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&A matrix update - deadline for comments 05:00 UTC
	July 30 [was RE: Action 7 of today's call]
Message-ID: <037701d0ca3d$3adcd070$b0967150$@icgsec.asia>

Hi Michael and All,

 

Please find the Q&A matrix attached and linked below.

 

Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1h5RBYL 

Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

 

Per Michael’s request, 2.3 has been changed to his formulation below and 2.5 has been deleted.  

 

Deadline for comments to this document is 05:00 UTC July 30.

 

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 michael niebel
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:49 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action 7 of today's call

 

---Point 2.3 of the matrix deals with P3.III. of the Response from Protocol Parameters Registries Community, (Number 3062) and notably "Transition to Success Contractor" C.7.3 and "Continuity of Services" I. 61 of the current IANA functions contract.

 

I find the present formulation of the question not easy to understand and therefore have tried to inject some clarifying elements . Please find below my proposal.

 

2.3

"Is it the preference of the IETF community to replace by a simple acknowledgement the obligations of ICANN established under C7-3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operators, should the need arise? Given that these obligations are not part of the MoU, is such a light declaration legally sufficient to satisfy the need for stability and continuity ?"

 

----Point 2.5 seems to me already  covered by point 2.3 ., as formulated above. I would see no added value in it and propose to delete it.

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/3f97ab07/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of internally resolved questions-v4-ALC-JC.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 18393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/3f97ab07/attachment.xlsx>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Wed Jul 29 20:44:33 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:44:33 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&A matrix update - deadline for comments 05:00
	UTC	July 30 [was RE: Action 7 of today's call]
In-Reply-To: <037701d0ca3d$3adcd070$b0967150$@icgsec.asia>
References: <037701d0ca3d$3adcd070$b0967150$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <039301d0ca3f$6108ee30$231aca90$@icgsec.asia>

Hi Russ,

 

Apologies for having missed your earlier edit on the answer to 2.3.

 

Here is the updated version v4-ALC-JC2 that incorporates your requested edit “as part of the implementation phase”.

 

Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1D9Pduf 

Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2

 

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: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:29 PM
To: 'michael niebel' <fmniebel at gmail.com>; 'Russ Housley' <housley at vigilsec.com>; 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&A matrix update - deadline for comments 05:00 UTC July 30 [was RE: Action 7 of today's call]

 

Hi Michael and All,

 

Please find the Q&A matrix attached and linked below.

 

Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1h5RBYL 

Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

 

Per Michael’s request, 2.3 has been changed to his formulation below and 2.5 has been deleted.  

 

Deadline for comments to this document is 05:00 UTC July 30.

 

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 michael niebel
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:49 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> 
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action 7 of today's call

 

---Point 2.3 of the matrix deals with P3.III. of the Response from Protocol Parameters Registries Community, (Number 3062) and notably "Transition to Success Contractor" C.7.3 and "Continuity of Services" I. 61 of the current IANA functions contract.

 

I find the present formulation of the question not easy to understand and therefore have tried to inject some clarifying elements . Please find below my proposal.

 

2.3

"Is it the preference of the IETF community to replace by a simple acknowledgement the obligations of ICANN established under C7-3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operators, should the need arise? Given that these obligations are not part of the MoU, is such a light declaration legally sufficient to satisfy the need for stability and continuity ?"

 

----Point 2.5 seems to me already  covered by point 2.3 ., as formulated above. I would see no added value in it and propose to delete it.

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/b91b63d8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of internally resolved questions-v4-ALC-JC2.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 18393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/b91b63d8/attachment.xlsx>

From patrik at frobbit.se  Wed Jul 29 21:18:47 2015
From: patrik at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 23:18:47 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <82A385EB-ADDC-47CB-BEE6-4CD3B6A695AB@vigilsec.com>
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>
Message-ID: <4F2D9648-41ED-46C4-B463-A94B3F4F93D8@frobbit.se>

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 <housley at vigilsec.com> 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 <Country/economy name> - <two letters>. 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 <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> 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" <jen at icgsec.asia>
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/b5104e23/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Wed Jul 29 21:35:31 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 23:35:31 +0200
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: <411161EB-9B10-43AD-B646-318914434D4A@oracle.com>

Despite code chosen or not the compromise Alissa suggested works.  From the call it seems we have more important issues to spend time ion...

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 29, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> 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 <housley at vigilsec.com> 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 <Country/economy name> - <two letters>. 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 <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> 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" <jen at icgsec.asia>
>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/8bec1969/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Wed Jul 29 22:00:42 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:00:42 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <59B75680-8946-4C6D-BE32-93675213F060@LStAmour.org>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
	<59B75680-8946-4C6D-BE32-93675213F060@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <8FB89C33-B70D-4BB0-8647-74DD7B3ED7B7@cooperw.in>

Hi Lynn,

Other than the ones of these that are editorial fixes (such as deleting the redundant sentence in the executive summary), are there any that you feel are absolutely necessary to make before we can proceed with the proposal? Some of these are fairly substantive and I hesitate to incorporate them when there is so little time for others to review and comment. I was hoping that the 24-hour review could be more limited to review of the edits we made on the call and editorial fixes.

Thanks,
Alissa

On Jul 29, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:

> Thank you to Alissa and the secretariat for such a quick turnaround.  This is looking very good.
> 
> I suggested a few edits for clarity, with my goal to keep edits to a minimum.  The new doc. is in Dropbox (combined-proposal-v7- lsa).
> 
> Best regards,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:11 PM, "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>> (Alan's request)
>> 
>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh 
>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
>> 
>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>> 
>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>> 
>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>> 
>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>> 
>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>> 
>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>> to the public comment web site.
>> 
>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>> 
>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>> 
>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>_______________________________________________
>> 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 Jul 29 22:40:49 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:40:49 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Webinar short announcement
Message-ID: <040701d0ca4f$9f162480$dd426d80$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

A short announcement of webinar times have been posted to the ICG web site
and ICG social media accounts.

 

Post: https://www.ianacg.org/?p=614 

Tweet: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/626519001083052032 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1683891181839514 

 

A longer announcement with further details will be posted on Friday 31 July.


 

Please do share this post with your communities!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/5f56b695/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Jul 30 00:21:44 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:21:44 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <ecc4d7c6fdbb4a7b951ec420dfff9815@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
	<328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ecc4d7c6fdbb4a7b951ec420dfff9815@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <9542C972-8D0E-4CEF-9443-855D2C75EF37@cooperw.in>

Hi Manal,

Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 26Jul15-MI-ALC.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 49857 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/21329001/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Dear all ..
> I just found out that I wrote wrong dates for the public comment period mentioned in questions 22 & 26 .. Things look different in the morning :) !!
> Apologies for the mistake .. Will make sure to have it fixed in the following iteration, after receiving your feedback ..
> 
> Should we add a question about the final overall proposed model and provide the diagram on slide 28 of the webinar deck as an answer, of course after addressing issues raised by ICG colleagues? (I'm still trying to catch up with the webinar slide deck discussion) ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manal Ismail 
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:56 AM
> To: Manal Ismail; Russ Mundy; Yannis Li
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
> 
> Dear All ..
> 
> Please find attached a first iteration for updating our FAQ ..
> I tried, to my best, to update the posted questions and add new ones based on our BA discussions and recent documents ..
> Appreciate your feedback ..
> 
> Alissa, is this on our agenda for the upcoming call?
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 1:27 PM
> To: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
> 
> Thanks a million Yannis ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 12:39 AM
> To: Yannis Li
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
> 
> Yannis,
> 
> Thanks for the quick response on this in the multiple formats.
> 
> Russ M
> 
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Yannis Li <yannis at icgsec.asia> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> After verifying with the documents in dropbox, we do not find the exact match of the online published version.
>> 
>> Therefore attached the latest online published version scrapping from our website ianacg.org.
>> 
>> They have also been uploaded onto the dropbox under the FAQ folder.
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/blq3etzjugl29g2/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.docx?dl=0
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/562w2q1lw765x41/ICG-FAQ-Published%20Version.rtf?dl=0
>> 
>> Thank you very much.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Yannis Li
>> ICG Secretariat
>> 
>> <ICG-FAQ-Published Version.docx><ICG-FAQ-Published Version.rtf>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul 30 01:05:44 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:05:44 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <9542C972-8D0E-4CEF-9443-855D2C75EF37@cooperw.in>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
	<328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ecc4d7c6fdbb4a7b951ec420dfff9815@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<9542C972-8D0E-4CEF-9443-855D2C75EF37@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <91f20eea647f40d2ae1ae597fad4341e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Alissa for your comments ..

All ..
On a second reading, I suggest adding a question before 21 stating: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? (or something along the lines); and provide the modified overall diagram as an answer to this .. Does this make sense?

I suggest this question (20') to be inserted under section VII " About ICG combined proposal public comment period" after renaming it to either:
- About ICG combined proposal 
or
- About ICG combined proposal and the public comment period

Thoughts ? 

I just didn't want to introduce a question that would affect the numbering of the working version at hand .. 

Kind Regards
--Manal 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:22 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Hi Manal,

Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.

Alissa



From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Thu Jul 30 01:29:02 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:29:02 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <8FB89C33-B70D-4BB0-8647-74DD7B3ED7B7@cooperw.in>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
	<59B75680-8946-4C6D-BE32-93675213F060@LStAmour.org>
	<8FB89C33-B70D-4BB0-8647-74DD7B3ED7B7@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <28CCA48A-A84D-423B-91C0-E14E48077DA3@LStAmour.org>

Hi Alissa,

I was trying to avoid any substantive edits, and only trying to clarify potential points of confusion. Please incorporate only those you are comfortable with or believe we have consensus on as I was not intending to make substantive changes.

Having said that, and trying to be helpful, I do think the proposed edits to X025 are largely editorial as I was trying to clarify which roles were maintaining their independence (but I may be the one reading it incorrectly).

X025       While the names proposal calls for the IANA functions operator to be transferred to the PTI, policy and operational roles are maintained in each community. The separation of PTI as a subsidiary will ensure the independence of these policy and operational roles from the implementation role of the IANA functions operator. This arrangement introduces minimum change and keeps the current IANA functions operation team intact and carrying out the same role as it has today.

Again, please incorporate only those you are comfortable with or believe we have consensus on.

Best,
Lynn



On Jul 29, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Lynn,
> 
> Other than the ones of these that are editorial fixes (such as deleting the redundant sentence in the executive summary), are there any that you feel are absolutely necessary to make before we can proceed with the proposal? Some of these are fairly substantive and I hesitate to incorporate them when there is so little time for others to review and comment. I was hoping that the 24-hour review could be more limited to review of the edits we made on the call and editorial fixes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you to Alissa and the secretariat for such a quick turnaround.  This is looking very good.
>> 
>> I suggested a few edits for clarity, with my goal to keep edits to a minimum.  The new doc. is in Dropbox (combined-proposal-v7- lsa).
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Lynn
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:11 PM, "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>>> (Alan's request)
>>> 
>>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh 
>>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
>>> 
>>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>>> 
>>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>>> 
>>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>>> 
>>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>>> 
>>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>>> 
>>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>>> to the public comment web site.
>>> 
>>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>>> 
>>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>>> 
>>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>_______________________________________________
>>> 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 Jul 30 02:31:56 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:31:56 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <57A07AFF-12F3-4B57-A7FE-50E4494D2D47@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
	<57A07AFF-12F3-4B57-A7FE-50E4494D2D47@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <D211540A-E36F-4C3D-B818-63070777E70B@tislabs.com>


On Jul 29, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Russ,
> 
> Responding below on a few points.

Alissa, thanks for all of your work on these slides and for the responses - my thoughts are inline, below.

Russ

> 
> On Jul 26, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>>> Attached are a draft slide deck and outline for the webinars planned for the public comment launch. The deck was prepared by XPLANE, a design firm that ICANN works with, with input from the ICG comms WG and comms folks from the OCs. We haven’t confirmed dates/times of the webinars but will do so soon. In the meantime please check the deck for accuracy and send your comments to the list.
>>> 
>>> Jennifer, please put these documents in Dropbox.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> Overall, the draft slide deck is a very good presentation.  I think that XPLANE did an excellent job of incorporating a large, diverse amount of information into a very reasonable number of slides.  The set of changes that I'm suggesting here intended are to improve the accuracy and/or clarity of the content of the slide deck.
>> 
>> First, some general suggestions:
>> 
>> - The use of different colors for the different OC and combined proposals is excellent - I think that it would be good to use a similar background shading or a object fill color for the operational community proposals throughout the deck.
> 
> I’m not sure I understand. The objects already are color-coded throughout the deck. I.e., parameters are light blue, numbers are green, and names are purple.

What I had in mind was that the respective image shapes, e.g. black boxes on slide 3 all have the same black fill color with the ‘dots & dashes’ in the color of the respective groups indicated on slide 2 - my suggestion was to change the fill color to the ‘group color’ instead of using black for all of them.  An alternative would be to add another ‘background object’ such as a cloud or other shape that was the ‘group color’ behind each of the current respective black boxes.  An example would be on slide 7 to have all of the fonts, lines & circles for a particular OC be changed to the respective ‘group color’ or have a background object in the respective ‘group color’  In other words, a more dominant use of colors will help differentiate the OCs.

Alan (I think) also made some comments about color use being inconsistent so I looked again and now see that there is not consistent use of colors (fills, boarders of shapes, fonts, etc) in various parts of the slide deck.  E.g., in the Names section (slides 8 -16), the ICANN, IANA/PTI objects are all filled with the ‘group color’ but in other sections (except for slide 28), the ICANN/IANA objects have no (or white) fill color.  Although the ‘group color’ is present in objects representing the OCs activities, it is used differently in each one.  Also, the NTIA object in the different sections does not have consistent fill/boarder/font use.  I suspect that most of the inconsistencies came from the individual OCs reviewing their own sections but not the full set of slides.

I do not know if there is time to make fixes to these inconsistencies but I do think that doing so would avoid or eliminate some questions or comments that are just not relevant.  If there’s not enough time, I can live with the inconsistencies. 

> 
>> 
>> - At some point, the deck should mention that IANA operations need to continue to operate stably, securely and resiliently through all transitiion activities.  Although it was not explicitly mentioned, it was inferred in the March 2014 announcement so perhaps slide 5 could add the following in the left column:
>> 
>> "The IANA functions must continue to operate securely, stably and resiliently through entire process of transition.”
> 
> I would not feel comfortable putting this text there because it does not actually appear in the NTIA announcement. I agree that this is important but I don’t think we should attribute it to NTIA in that way. Maybe we could write “Continued security, stability and resilience of the IANA functions” along the bottom of slide 6?

Good point - I’d fine with text on the bottom of slide 6.  How does “On-going secure, stable and resilient IANA functions” with an arrow from left to right under or behind the text?

> 
>> 
>> Secondly, some specific suggestions for individual slides.  I tried to minimize the structural changes to the slides so the suggestions would be straight forward to incorporate - or reject:
>> 
>> - Slide 3:  At the top of the slide, the Operational Communitees should be shown seperately - perhaps with a surrounding box indicating "IANA Customers".   Suggest using "Names Community" (also change Slide 10), "Numbers Community" (also change Slide 19) and "Protocol Parameters Community" (perhaps change Slide 25).
> 
> Since this is the very first substantive slide, I’m not sure it makes sense to dive right into that level of detail. Furthermore, this would be hard to depict for protocol parameters since lots of registries can be populated by anyone who wants to register something and those people may not really consider themselves part of the “protocol parameters community.” I’d rather opt for simplicity in slide 3.

I can see the point that simple is better but the problem I see in this case is that it would give the impression that all IANA customers are alike and ask for the same type of service which is clearly not the case - it might also motivate questions like “Why did you ask for three proposals?”.  I do think it would be better to show the separate communities but as a minimum, there should be three “talk boxes” (vice 4), i.e. one in each ‘group color’.

> 
> Slide 10: changing to “Names community” seems fine

okay

> 
> Slide 19: this slide comes from the CRISP team so I’m reluctant to change how they have labelled the diagram.

it seems inconsistent but don’t have time to correct it but I can live with it

> 
> Slide 25: In this case it is the IETF that is the entity with relationships to IANA/ICANN, so I would again be reluctant to change this.

it seems inconsistent but don’t have time to correct it but I can live with it

> 
>> 
>> --  Change "Make Change Requests" to "Submit Requests" .  Many but not all requests are for changes so "Change" should be dropped (also change Slide 10).
> 
> Agree — “make requests” is generic and the speaker can explain what that means.

okay

> 
>> 
>> -- Some of the information provided by the OCs is maintained in databases but calling everything a "Database" is simply not accurate.  This is particularly true for the Root Zone Maintainance process but the other OCs also have some information that are not accurately called "Database".  I suggest the following renaming:
>> 
>> --- Change "Names Database" to "DNS Root Zone Info"  (also change Slide 10)
>> 
>> --- Change "Numbers Database" to "Numbers Information" 
>> 
>> --- Change "Protocol Database" to "Protocol Parameters Registries”
> 
> My proposal would be to strike all three instances of the word “Database.” So the labels would just be “Names,” “Numbers” and “Protocol Parameters.” The speaker can explain what the repositories are that are depicted by the black boxes.

I’d be fine with that change as long as we clearly point out that for ‘Names’ this is related to the DNS Root Zone - I think this can be handled with the additional slide between 8 & 9 (below)

> 
>> 
>> -- It's unclear what the three devices at the bottom of the slide represent but I think they are intended to indicate those that use information maintained and provided by IANA.  If this is a correct interpretation, suggest adding text under the devices that says (something like): "Consumbers = Any Internet User"  or something equivalent
> 
> I think this is something the speaker can explain, i.e., that the identifiers get used in software running on Internet users’ devices.

I found this part of the slide confusing in that it really wasn’t clear why the devices were on the slide.  I agree that the speaker can explain but I expect that the slides will be used by many people beyond the webinars and think that it would be good for them to stand on their own so having text like “Any Internet User” would be useful when the slides show up on some random web/blog site.

> 
>> 
>> - Slide 5: see second general comment above.
>> 
>> - There should be a slide added between the current slide 8 and slide 9 that actually says what the IANA names functions are - the illustrations of current slides 9 and 10 are examples of data but do not show what is involved with maintenance of the DNS Root Zone.  I suggest that text list be derived from the recent ICANN publication "The IANA Functions - An Introduction to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions" from the lists on pages 14, 17 & 18  that is available at:
>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-functions-15jun15-en.pdf
>> 
>> Other potential sources for the list of functions are the Names proposal paragraph P1.I.A. (1003)  or SSAC reports SAC-067 and SAC-068
> 
> Could you provide exactly the list of bullets you would want to see?

(built from Names proposal Annex A, some consolidation of that list)

Title:  What are the IANA functions related to names?

Root Zone Change Request Management

Root Zone WHOIS Change Request Management

Delegation and Redelegation of TLDs

Root DNSSEC Key Management

Management of Repository of IDN Practices

Other Root Zone Related activities


> 
>> 
>> - Slide 11 suggest changing "Customers" to "Names Community”
> 
> This is another slide that comes directly from one of the OCs (the CWG), so I’m reluctant to suggest a change.

it seems inconsistent but don’t have time to correct it but I can live with it

> 
>> 
>> - Slide 15 only lists 6 of the 7 items the CWG said their proposal depended on the CCWG results - item 5 (Separation Process) is not currently listed and should be.
> 
> I would propose to add a box with the following text after the CSC box:
> 
> “Empowerment of the Special IFR to determine that a separation process is necessary” 
> 
> with “separation process” in bold

This looks good, thanks

> 
>> 
>> - Slide 19 has an * after "Service level Agreement" and "Review Performance" on the right side of the slide with no explanation.  I would suggest dropping the * or adding some descriptive text.
> 
> Agree, this is left over from an earlier version.

okay

> 
>> 
>> - Slide 28 (simple change) change "vmetrics" to "metrics”.
> 
> Good catch.

Thanks

> 
>> 
>> - Slide 28 provides an excellent overview of providing an overall illustration of the oversight and accountability aspects of the three operational communities.  However, it does not show any of the regular, on-going interactions of the OCs.  It is, in fact, a very different perspective on the IANA functions than is provided in Slide 3.  This could incorrectly infer that the OCs proposals and transition will result in massive changes from how things work today.  To avoid this incorrect inference, I would suggest that the section needs to either have two slides, one to illustrate how the regular, on-going functions are accomplished by replicating Slide 3 or add text to the current slide that says "this illustrates accountability and oversight" and points to Slide 3 as the illustration of the regular, on-going functions.
> 
> Per our discussion on the call, would it work for you if we title this slide “Oversight components in the combined proposal”?

Yes, that is a good change to the title.  I would like to see this slide also include the other changes made in paragraph 15 of the v7-JC.doc if that’s feasible.

> 
> Thanks,

You’re certainly welcome - thank you for all of your work on these.

> Alissa
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thoughts & responses from others are certainly welcome,
>> 
>> Russ M
>> 
>> 



From mundy at tislabs.com  Thu Jul 30 02:42:57 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:42:57 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <517FB408-6D74-4091-B312-1B35D0994CAE@tislabs.com>

Thanks for all the quick work on incorporating the changes - I am fine with this version.  Russ M

On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
> (Alan's request)
> 
> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh 
> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
> 
> I note that per Martin's previous response,
> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
> no new text will be added to this particular section.
> 
> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
> 
> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
> 
> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
> 
> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
> 
> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
> to the public comment web site.
> 
> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
> 
> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
> 
> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>_______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 30 03:42:54 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:42:54 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <91f20eea647f40d2ae1ae597fad4341e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
	<328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ecc4d7c6fdbb4a7b951ec420dfff9815@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<9542C972-8D0E-4CEF-9443-855D2C75EF37@cooperw.in>
	<91f20eea647f40d2ae1ae597fad4341e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <813CAB72-265A-4B14-89F7-BC670E40268E@cooperw.in>

Sounds good to me.
Alissa

On Jul 29, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Many thanks Alissa for your comments ..
> 
> All ..
> On a second reading, I suggest adding a question before 21 stating: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? (or something along the lines); and provide the modified overall diagram as an answer to this .. Does this make sense?
> 
> I suggest this question (20') to be inserted under section VII " About ICG combined proposal public comment period" after renaming it to either:
> - About ICG combined proposal 
> or
> - About ICG combined proposal and the public comment period
> 
> Thoughts ? 
> 
> I just didn't want to introduce a question that would affect the numbering of the working version at hand .. 
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:22 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
> 
> Hi Manal,
> 
> Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.
> 
> Alissa
> 



From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Thu Jul 30 04:28:47 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:28:47 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
Message-ID: <BB46BCE2-6F9E-4571-83DA-44D346329180@t-online.de>

Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?
Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
> (Alan's request)
> 
> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh 
> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
> 
> I note that per Martin's previous response,
> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
> no new text will be added to this particular section.
> 
> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
> 
> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
> 
> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
> 
> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
> 
> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
> to the public comment web site.
> 
> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
> 
> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
> 
> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
> <1.txt>


From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Jul 30 04:33:41 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:33:41 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <BB46BCE2-6F9E-4571-83DA-44D346329180@t-online.de>
References: <BB46BCE2-6F9E-4571-83DA-44D346329180@t-online.de>
Message-ID: <7AC16382-A7D2-4FE8-B3B7-E5A961AE0A43@cooperw.in>

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:

> Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
> Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?

I don’t understand your question. Could you re-phrase?

Thanks,
Alissa

> Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
> My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.
> 
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> Sent from my personal phone
> 
>> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>> (Alan's request)
>> 
>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh 
>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
>> 
>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>> 
>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>> 
>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>> 
>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>> 
>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>> 
>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>> to the public comment web site.
>> 
>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>> 
>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>> 
>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
>> <1.txt>



From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Thu Jul 30 05:16:55 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:16:55 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <7AC16382-A7D2-4FE8-B3B7-E5A961AE0A43@cooperw.in>
References: <BB46BCE2-6F9E-4571-83DA-44D346329180@t-online.de>
	<7AC16382-A7D2-4FE8-B3B7-E5A961AE0A43@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <2D93A924-63DF-4AE0-A055-1AC84C2013CA@t-online.de>

Hi Alissa,

Sorry for not having been clear.
What I mean is just a general sentence recommending to the NTIA to accept the combined proposal.

From the policy work at ICANN I'm used that a report contains recommendations to the body approving the report.

Isn't this applicable here, too?

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

> Am 30.07.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> 
> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
>> Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?
> 
> I don’t understand your question. Could you re-phrase?
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>> Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
>> My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>> Sent from my personal phone
>> 
>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>>> (Alan's request)
>>> 
>>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh 
>>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 
>>> 
>>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>>> 
>>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>>> 
>>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>>> 
>>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>>> 
>>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>>> 
>>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>>> to the public comment web site.
>>> 
>>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>>> 
>>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>>> 
>>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
>>> <1.txt>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 30 05:42:04 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:42:04 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <2D93A924-63DF-4AE0-A055-1AC84C2013CA@t-online.de>
References: <BB46BCE2-6F9E-4571-83DA-44D346329180@t-online.de>
	<7AC16382-A7D2-4FE8-B3B7-E5A961AE0A43@cooperw.in>
	<2D93A924-63DF-4AE0-A055-1AC84C2013CA@t-online.de>
Message-ID: <FFB3ED56-D8F5-4DEB-BCF3-6ED22CC51FC7@frobbit.se>

Hi,

I think I understand what you are referring to Wolf-Ulrich. As co-chairs of ICG we will talk about what the actual practicalities are of the final submission. Remember that the path will be from us, via ICANN Board to NTIA. This, from my perspective, will require a letter that is sent with this report. A letter from Alissa as chair. To some combination of ICANN Board and NTIA. Yes, ICANN Board might have to issue a resolution, or they might already have done so.

So, to conclude, I do not think we need this _now_ but rather this is a detail regarding how to package our submission when we are at ICANN in Dublin. And yes, we chairs have this on our list to come with a proposal of to ICG.

   Patrik

On 30 Jul 2015, at 7:16, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:

> Hi Alissa,
>
> Sorry for not having been clear.
> What I mean is just a general sentence recommending to the NTIA to accept the combined proposal.
>
> From the policy work at ICANN I'm used that a report contains recommendations to the body approving the report.
>
> Isn't this applicable here, too?
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Sent from my personal phone
>
>> Am 30.07.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>
>> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
>>> Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?
>>
>> I don’t understand your question. Could you re-phrase?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>>
>>> Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
>>> My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>> Sent from my personal phone
>>>
>>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>>>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>>>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>>>> (Alan's request)
>>>>
>>>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh
>>>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>>>
>>>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>>>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>
>>>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>>>>
>>>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>>>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>>>>
>>>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>>>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>>>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>>>>
>>>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>>>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>>>> to the public comment web site.
>>>>
>>>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>
>>>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
>>>> <1.txt>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/a18f5325/attachment.sig>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Thu Jul 30 05:45:42 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:45:42 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <FFB3ED56-D8F5-4DEB-BCF3-6ED22CC51FC7@frobbit.se>
References: <BB46BCE2-6F9E-4571-83DA-44D346329180@t-online.de>	<7AC16382-A7D2-4FE8-B3B7-E5A961AE0A43@cooperw.in>	<2D93A924-63DF-4AE0-A055-1AC84C2013CA@t-online.de>
	<FFB3ED56-D8F5-4DEB-BCF3-6ED22CC51FC7@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <55B9BA06.7000104@oracle.com>

I agree that we may not need to formalize the final edit of this now, 
but reviewers of the document for consensus should have no 
mis-impression related to our recommendation... Some statement should be 
made so that it is part of their review.

On 7/30/2015 1:42 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I understand what you are referring to Wolf-Ulrich. As co-chairs of ICG we will talk about what the actual practicalities are of the final submission. Remember that the path will be from us, via ICANN Board to NTIA. This, from my perspective, will require a letter that is sent with this report. A letter from Alissa as chair. To some combination of ICANN Board and NTIA. Yes, ICANN Board might have to issue a resolution, or they might already have done so.
>
> So, to conclude, I do not think we need this _now_ but rather this is a detail regarding how to package our submission when we are at ICANN in Dublin. And yes, we chairs have this on our list to come with a proposal of to ICG.
>
>     Patrik
>
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 7:16, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>
>> Hi Alissa,
>>
>> Sorry for not having been clear.
>> What I mean is just a general sentence recommending to the NTIA to accept the combined proposal.
>>
>>  From the policy work at ICANN I'm used that a report contains recommendations to the body approving the report.
>>
>> Isn't this applicable here, too?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>> Sent from my personal phone
>>
>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>>
>>> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>>>
>>>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
>>>> Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?
>>> I don’t understand your question. Could you re-phrase?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
>>>> My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my personal phone
>>>>
>>>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>>>>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>>>>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>>>>> (Alan's request)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh
>>>>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>>>>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>>>>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>>>>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>>>>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>>>>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>>>>> to the public comment web site.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>
>>>>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
>>>>> <1.txt>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/acbabbd9/attachment.html>

From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de  Thu Jul 30 05:49:03 2015
From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:49:03 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <FFB3ED56-D8F5-4DEB-BCF3-6ED22CC51FC7@frobbit.se>
References: <BB46BCE2-6F9E-4571-83DA-44D346329180@t-online.de>
	<7AC16382-A7D2-4FE8-B3B7-E5A961AE0A43@cooperw.in>
	<2D93A924-63DF-4AE0-A055-1AC84C2013CA@t-online.de>
	<FFB3ED56-D8F5-4DEB-BCF3-6ED22CC51FC7@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <C471E937-E07B-4E6E-9DDB-1904583AD9C3@t-online.de>

Thanks Patrik,
That's very clear and acceptable.

So - no other concern with the report.
Thanks for the hard work

Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

> Am 30.07.2015 um 13:42 schrieb Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think I understand what you are referring to Wolf-Ulrich. As co-chairs of ICG we will talk about what the actual practicalities are of the final submission. Remember that the path will be from us, via ICANN Board to NTIA. This, from my perspective, will require a letter that is sent with this report. A letter from Alissa as chair. To some combination of ICANN Board and NTIA. Yes, ICANN Board might have to issue a resolution, or they might already have done so.
> 
> So, to conclude, I do not think we need this _now_ but rather this is a detail regarding how to package our submission when we are at ICANN in Dublin. And yes, we chairs have this on our list to come with a proposal of to ICG.
> 
>   Patrik
> 
>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 7:16, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Alissa,
>> 
>> Sorry for not having been clear.
>> What I mean is just a general sentence recommending to the NTIA to accept the combined proposal.
>> 
>> From the policy work at ICANN I'm used that a report contains recommendations to the body approving the report.
>> 
>> Isn't this applicable here, too?
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>> Sent from my personal phone
>> 
>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>> 
>>> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
>>>> Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?
>>> 
>>> I don’t understand your question. Could you re-phrase?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>>> Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
>>>> My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my personal phone
>>>> 
>>>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>>>>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>>>>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>>>>> (Alan's request)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh
>>>>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>>>> 
>>>>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>>>>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>>>>> 
>>>>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>>>>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>>>>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>>>>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>>>>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>>>>> to the public comment web site.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> 
>>>>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
>>>>> <1.txt>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Thu Jul 30 05:51:13 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:51:13 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <55B9BA06.7000104@oracle.com>
References: <BB46BCE2-6F9E-4571-83DA-44D346329180@t-online.de>
	<7AC16382-A7D2-4FE8-B3B7-E5A961AE0A43@cooperw.in>
	<2D93A924-63DF-4AE0-A055-1AC84C2013CA@t-online.de>
	<FFB3ED56-D8F5-4DEB-BCF3-6ED22CC51FC7@frobbit.se>
	<55B9BA06.7000104@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <BF52BE19-42FF-4936-A11F-DE37F8A643CE@frobbit.se>

Point taken. I will discuss this with Alissa (she is sleeping -- a well deserved sleep -- at the moment).

   Patrik

On 30 Jul 2015, at 7:45, joseph alhadeff wrote:

> I agree that we may not need to formalize the final edit of this now, but reviewers of the document for consensus should have no mis-impression related to our recommendation... Some statement should be made so that it is part of their review.
>
> On 7/30/2015 1:42 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think I understand what you are referring to Wolf-Ulrich. As co-chairs of ICG we will talk about what the actual practicalities are of the final submission. Remember that the path will be from us, via ICANN Board to NTIA. This, from my perspective, will require a letter that is sent with this report. A letter from Alissa as chair. To some combination of ICANN Board and NTIA. Yes, ICANN Board might have to issue a resolution, or they might already have done so.
>>
>> So, to conclude, I do not think we need this _now_ but rather this is a detail regarding how to package our submission when we are at ICANN in Dublin. And yes, we chairs have this on our list to come with a proposal of to ICG.
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 7:16, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alissa,
>>>
>>> Sorry for not having been clear.
>>> What I mean is just a general sentence recommending to the NTIA to accept the combined proposal.
>>>
>>> From the policy work at ICANN I'm used that a report contains recommendations to the body approving the report.
>>>
>>> Isn't this applicable here, too?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>> Sent from my personal phone
>>>
>>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
>>>>> Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?
>>>> I don’t understand your question. Could you re-phrase?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
>>>>> My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my personal phone
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>>>>>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>>>>>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>>>>>> (Alan's request)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh
>>>>>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>>>>>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>>>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>>>>>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>>>>>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>>>>>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>>>>>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>>>>>> to the public comment web site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
>>>>>> <1.txt>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/1b826490/attachment.sig>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Thu Jul 30 05:50:35 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:50:35 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <91f20eea647f40d2ae1ae597fad4341e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>	<328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<ecc4d7c6fdbb4a7b951ec420dfff9815@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>	<9542C972-8D0E-4CEF-9443-855D2C75EF37@cooperw.in>
	<91f20eea647f40d2ae1ae597fad4341e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <55B9BB2B.1040307@oracle.com>

Colleagues:

In phrasing we should be careful not to imply that there is one overall 
oversight model. there are rather oversight models of the substantive 
parts, which in reality is today's reality as well.

Joe

On 7/29/2015 9:05 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:
> Many thanks Alissa for your comments ..
>
> All ..
> On a second reading, I suggest adding a question before 21 stating: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? (or something along the lines); and provide the modified overall diagram as an answer to this .. Does this make sense?
>
> I suggest this question (20') to be inserted under section VII " About ICG combined proposal public comment period" after renaming it to either:
> - About ICG combined proposal
> or
> - About ICG combined proposal and the public comment period
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> I just didn't want to introduce a question that would affect the numbering of the working version at hand ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:22 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
>
> Hi Manal,
>
> Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.
>
> 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  Thu Jul 30 06:51:44 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:51:44 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <55B9BB2B.1040307@oracle.com>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
	<328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ecc4d7c6fdbb4a7b951ec420dfff9815@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<9542C972-8D0E-4CEF-9443-855D2C75EF37@cooperw.in>
	<91f20eea647f40d2ae1ae597fad4341e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<55B9BB2B.1040307@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <de730e6cf0c84e3c836b65b8a77a98a3@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Joe .. noted .. 

We can use your below sentences in the answer before showing the diagram i.e.: 
Q: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? 
A: There is no one overall oversight model. There are three oversight models of the substantive operational parts, also reflecting today's reality. + <show the diagram>

Or re-phrase the question to read:
Q: How do the OCs oversight models look like in the combined final proposal?
A: <show the diagram>

Does any of the above address your concern? or do you have a better formulation in mind?
Please let me know your preference. I'm ok with both but believe the first stresses your point more, by asking a common but inaccurate question and provide the correct accurate answer .. Let me know what you think ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 7:51 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Colleagues:

In phrasing we should be careful not to imply that there is one overall oversight model. there are rather oversight models of the substantive parts, which in reality is today's reality as well.

Joe

On 7/29/2015 9:05 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:
> Many thanks Alissa for your comments ..
>
> All ..
> On a second reading, I suggest adding a question before 21 stating: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? (or something along the lines); and provide the modified overall diagram as an answer to this .. Does this make sense?
>
> I suggest this question (20') to be inserted under section VII " About ICG combined proposal public comment period" after renaming it to either:
> - About ICG combined proposal
> or
> - About ICG combined proposal and the public comment period
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> I just didn't want to introduce a question that would affect the numbering of the working version at hand ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:22 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & 
> .rtf)
>
> Hi Manal,
>
> Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.
>
> 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  Thu Jul 30 06:52:04 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:52:04 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <813CAB72-265A-4B14-89F7-BC670E40268E@cooperw.in>
References: <D2F9C1A7-3175-4DCB-84F8-CD61DC58546D@icgsec.asia>
	<2E37E577-FB40-4490-8E4B-DCF56E50FD36@tislabs.com>
	<328c29d9bfd74a3eabfd516e5e0f6295@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ab3bb51ca6a740a8b311a8d126db7987@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<ecc4d7c6fdbb4a7b951ec420dfff9815@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<9542C972-8D0E-4CEF-9443-855D2C75EF37@cooperw.in>
	<91f20eea647f40d2ae1ae597fad4341e@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<813CAB72-265A-4B14-89F7-BC670E40268E@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <fa70caeb37e74d7587ef18f22f5562fd@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Alissa ..
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:43 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Sounds good to me.
Alissa

On Jul 29, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Many thanks Alissa for your comments ..
> 
> All ..
> On a second reading, I suggest adding a question before 21 stating: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? (or something along the lines); and provide the modified overall diagram as an answer to this .. Does this make sense?
> 
> I suggest this question (20') to be inserted under section VII " About ICG combined proposal public comment period" after renaming it to either:
> - About ICG combined proposal 
> or
> - About ICG combined proposal and the public comment period
> 
> Thoughts ? 
> 
> I just didn't want to introduce a question that would affect the numbering of the working version at hand .. 
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:22 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
> 
> Hi Manal,
> 
> Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.
> 
> Alissa
> 



From mnuduma at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 30 07:04:20 2015
From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:04:20 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <55B9BB2B.1040307@oracle.com>
References: <55B9BB2B.1040307@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <1603669285.5699529.1438239860318.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Thank you Manal, Alissa Secretariat and Colleagues for the good and hard work in producing the documents.
I have just a small edit on the question 4. (Tasks)Can we change sub 1 and 2 under task 1 to read1.a soliciting proposal..........................1.b soliciting input ........................If I am late, please ignoreQuestion 19 seems a bit confusing in terms of which target date we are referring to  - ICG, Fadi's or proposed extension of IANA contract by NTIA - 
However, if I am late in raising this, please ignore also, as I can live with it.
See attached.
Mary Uduma





 


     On Thursday, July 30, 2015 6:51 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
   

 Colleagues:

In phrasing we should be careful not to imply that there is one overall 
oversight model. there are rather oversight models of the substantive 
parts, which in reality is today's reality as well.

Joe

On 7/29/2015 9:05 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:
> Many thanks Alissa for your comments ..
>
> All ..
> On a second reading, I suggest adding a question before 21 stating: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? (or something along the lines); and provide the modified overall diagram as an answer to this .. Does this make sense?
>
> I suggest this question (20') to be inserted under section VII " About ICG combined proposal public comment period" after renaming it to either:
> - About ICG combined proposal
> or
> - About ICG combined proposal and the public comment period
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> I just didn't want to introduce a question that would affect the numbering of the working version at hand ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:22 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
>
> Hi Manal,
>
> Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.
>
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/9d45c571/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-FAQ-Published Version-update 26Jul15-MI-ALC-MU.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 43575 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/9d45c571/attachment.docx>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Thu Jul 30 07:59:14 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:59:14 +0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <7C899788-F18C-4568-8EC4-83772D843262@piuha.net>


> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>

I have reviewed this version and to me it looks OK. Thanks for your work, Jennifer, Alissa and others!

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/c8e27117/attachment.sig>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Jul 30 08:30:09 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:30:09 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
In-Reply-To: <1603669285.5699529.1438239860318.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <55B9BB2B.1040307@oracle.com>
	<1603669285.5699529.1438239860318.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bc7da0003d7340009437cf0f55d01fe2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Mary ..
No you’re not late the deadline agreed for commenting on the FAQ is July 31 at 23:59 UTC ..
On your first point, although it may be a better formulation yet the current one is a ‘copy & pate’ from our charter .. so I’d rather leave it as is .. Hope this is ok with you ..

On your second point, and thanks for raising it, I had the same question in the side comments .. Happy to delete the question if so agreed ..

For other colleagues convenience, the original question that was already posted on the ICG website was:

Q (old): Are there alternative scenarios if the target date of Sep. 2015 is not met?
A: The ICG takes the task at hand very seriously and aims to meet the target date. This should not mean, in any way, compromising the quality or functionality of the submitted transition proposal or failing to meet any of the NTIA criteria. Yet, in the unlikely event of not meeting the target date, it’s up to the NTIA to decide on the next steps.

I removed the date from the question (but had in the side comments a question similar to Mary’s) ..  the Q & A now reads:

Q. (new): Are there alternative scenarios if the target date is not met?
A: The ICG takes the task at hand very seriously and aims to meet the target date. This should not mean, in any way, compromising the quality or functionality of the submitted transition proposal or failing to meet any of the NTIA criteria. Yet, in the unlikely event of not meeting the target date, it’s up to the NTIA to decide on the next steps.

So question now is: Does this question (and answer) still hold? If yes, what target date should be referenced here?
Again I’m happy to delete it if you we feel it’s not an existing FAQ now ..

Kind regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:04 AM
To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Thank you Manal, Alissa Secretariat and Colleagues for the good and hard work in producing the documents.

I have just a small edit on the question 4. (Tasks)
Can we change sub 1 and 2 under task 1 to read
1.a soliciting proposal..........................
1.b soliciting input ........................
If I am late, please ignore
Question 19 seems a bit confusing in terms of which target date we are referring to  - ICG, Fadi's or proposed extension of IANA contract by NTIA -
However, if I am late in raising this, please ignore also, as I can live with it.

See attached.

Mary Uduma







On Thursday, July 30, 2015 6:51 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:

Colleagues:

In phrasing we should be careful not to imply that there is one overall
oversight model. there are rather oversight models of the substantive
parts, which in reality is today's reality as well.

Joe

On 7/29/2015 9:05 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:
> Many thanks Alissa for your comments ..
>
> All ..
> On a second reading, I suggest adding a question before 21 stating: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? (or something along the lines); and provide the modified overall diagram as an answer to this .. Does this make sense?
>
> I suggest this question (20') to be inserted under section VII " About ICG combined proposal public comment period" after renaming it to either:
> - About ICG combined proposal
> or
> - About ICG combined proposal and the public comment period
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> I just didn't want to introduce a question that would affect the numbering of the working version at hand ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>]
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:22 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)
>
> Hi Manal,
>
> Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.
>
> Alissa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/de6be1f8/attachment.html>

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Thu Jul 30 10:05:40 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:05:40 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg]
 =?utf-8?q?Final_Published_Version_of_FAQ_=28=2Edoc_?=
 =?utf-8?b?JiAucnRmKQ==?=
Message-ID: <20150730100136.44D851C14EB@smtp.notifymdm.com>

Yes anytime along those lines is fine.

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
Received: Thursday, 30 Jul 2015, 8:50AM
To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Thanks Joe .. noted .. 

We can use your below sentences in the answer before showing the diagram i.e.: 
Q: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? 
A: There is no one overall oversight model. There are three oversight models of the substantive operational parts, also reflecting today's reality. + <show the diagram>

Or re-phrase the question to read:
Q: How do the OCs oversight models look like in the combined final proposal?
A: <show the diagram>

Does any of the above address your concern? or do you have a better formulation in mind?
Please let me know your preference. I'm ok with both but believe the first stresses your point more, by asking a common but inaccurate question and provide the correct accurate answer .. Let me know what you think ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 7:51 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & .rtf)

Colleagues:

In phrasing we should be careful not to imply that there is one overall oversight model. there are rather oversight models of the substantive parts, which in reality is today's reality as well.

Joe

On 7/29/2015 9:05 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:
> Many thanks Alissa for your comments ..
>
> All ..
> On a second reading, I suggest adding a question before 21 stating: How does the overall oversight model of the combined proposal look like? (or something along the lines); and provide the modified overall diagram as an answer to this .. Does this make sense?
>
> I suggest this question (20') to be inserted under section VII " About ICG combined proposal public comment period" after renaming it to either:
> - About ICG combined proposal
> or
> - About ICG combined proposal and the public comment period
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> I just didn't want to introduce a question that would affect the numbering of the working version at hand ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:22 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Russ Mundy; Yannis Li; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Final Published Version of FAQ (.doc & 
> .rtf)
>
> Hi Manal,
>
> Some edits are attached. Overall I think this looks good.
>
> 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 Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Thu Jul 30 10:26:04 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:26:04 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <517FB408-6D74-4091-B312-1B35D0994CAE@tislabs.com>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
	<517FB408-6D74-4091-B312-1B35D0994CAE@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADFB70@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

I think this looks good.  However, I did have one significant question:

X013 we give the date ("estimated to occur by") as November 2015 for the CCWG work.  This is not in line with the current CCWG schedule, which gives:

*  9 October the proposal should go to the chartering organisations
*  12-21 October for SO/AC approval period (ie ending with adoption at ICANN 54)
*  22 October for submission to the ICANN Board.

It would seem to me that on 9 October we could (and should) ask the CWG for confirmation and expect to have that at the time that the chartering organisations approve the CCWG report (in other words, we want the chartering organisations to do two jobs at the same time - agree that the report meets the IANA transition requirements and adopt the report.  So we have closure at the Board meeting on 22/10.

Shouldn't our text read October to be in line with the CCWG timeline?


I've a small number of drafting suggestions which you can take or leave:

X005:  after "affiliate" (the first time the term is used and as a term from Californian (or perhaps US) law, but one that doesn't seem to be understood or mean much in other jurisdictions) I suggest that we insert ("subsidiary") after the term.

X022:  I'm not sure that this is actually correct.  I think that "The public comment process will identify the support for [or "acceptability of" is probably more accurate] the combined proposal."

X025:  I'm not sure that "independence of these roles from the contractor providing the service" makes sense.  I *think* what we want to say is "independence of the role of oversight [which will be within ICANN] from the contractor providing the service."

012:  "is expressly conditioned on" - is this a common American English formulation?  In British English we would say "expressly conditional on".  (Conditioned has a rather different meaning.) 

As I say, I'm not too bothered and don't want to get into a battle of drafting.  X025 is probably the most important as it doesn't describe an important part of the CWG model accurately.


Thanks

Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy
Sent: 30 July 2015 03:43
To: Jennifer Chung; Alissa Cooper
Cc: Russ Mundy; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review

Thanks for all the quick work on incorporating the changes - I am fine with this version.  Russ M

On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key 
> added (Alan's request)
> 
> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh Dropbox link to 
> folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
> 
> I note that per Martin's previous response, 
> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164
> .html, no new text will be added to this particular section.
> 
> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
> 
> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
> 
> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on 
> the call. There are three items not yet reflected:
> 
> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to 
> the visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related 
> to NTIA's authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by 
> Martin
> 
> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are 
> also reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as 
> appropriate to the public comment web site.
> 
> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
> 
> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
> 
> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>_________________________________________
> ______
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Jul 30 14:13:29 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:13:29 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADFB70@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
	<517FB408-6D74-4091-B312-1B35D0994CAE@tislabs.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADFB70@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5F6DDB74-ED68-48EC-B5B8-E04F644EA1D9@cooperw.in>

All,

We have incorporated changes based on feedback from Wolf-Ulrich, Joe, and Martin. The text of -v9 (attached) should now be considered final as we have shipped it off to the translators.

X005 (same as 07 below): added “(subsidiary)”

X012 (same as 32 below): parenthetical now reads “(estimated to occur prior to ICANN 54 in October 2015)”

X018 (same as 45): the text now reads:
        The ICG will make a determination about whether the combined proposal has achieved broad community support following its solicitation of public comments on the combined proposal.

X021 (same as 51 below): this was clearly confusing to several people. the text now reads as follows:
        While the names proposal calls for the IANA functions operator to be transferred to the PTI, the PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for the stewardship of the PTI. Hence operational roles are maintained. The proposal envisages the names aspect of the current NTIA oversight and contracting authority is transferred to ICANN. The separation of PTI as a subsidiary will ensure the independence of that oversight role from the contractor providing the service. 

X022: is now its own paragraph, rather than being the last sentence of the previous paragraph

X026 (similar to 63 below): this is a new paragraph in a new section to address Wolf-Ulrich’s point. it reads:
        After the conclusion of the ICG public comment period and the finalization of CCWG Workstream 1, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described in Part 0, Section IV below, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal, pending the resolution of the outstanding items highlighted in that section.

07: added "(subsidiary)”

09: no change. “expressly conditioned” is text directly from the CWG proposal.

32: parenthetical now reads “(estimated to occur prior to ICANN 54 in October 2015)”

51: now reads as follows:
01             While the names proposal calls for the IANA functions operator to be transferred to the PTI, the PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for the stewardship of the PTI. Hence operational roles are maintained. The proposal envisages the names aspect of the current NTIA oversight and contracting authority is transferred to ICANN. The separation of PTI as a subsidiary will ensure the independence of that oversight role from the contractor providing the service. 

63: this is a new paragraph in a new section to address Wolf-Ulrich’s point. it reads:
01             After the conclusion of the ICG public comment period and the finalization of CCWG Workstream 1, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal, pending the resolution of the outstanding items highlighted in this section.

Thanks,
Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/2410c4eb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: combined-proposal-v9.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1454080 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/2410c4eb/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/2410c4eb/attachment-0001.html>

From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Thu Jul 30 14:54:54 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:54:54 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <5F6DDB74-ED68-48EC-B5B8-E04F644EA1D9@cooperw.in>
References: <A5930ADE-1ADD-4081-B1CF-B196971CCA12@cooperw.in>
	<036d01d0ca3a$ca350290$5e9f07b0$@icgsec.asia>
	<517FB408-6D74-4091-B312-1B35D0994CAE@tislabs.com>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81ADFB70@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
	<5F6DDB74-ED68-48EC-B5B8-E04F644EA1D9@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE0547@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Fine by me.

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: 30 July 2015 15:13
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: Russ Mundy; Jennifer Chung; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review

All,

We have incorporated changes based on feedback from Wolf-Ulrich, Joe, and Martin. The text of -v9 (attached) should now be considered final as we have shipped it off to the translators.

X005 (same as 07 below): added “(subsidiary)”

X012 (same as 32 below): parenthetical now reads “(estimated to occur prior to ICANN 54 in October 2015)”

X018 (same as 45): the text now reads:

        The ICG will make a determination about whether the combined proposal has achieved broad community support following its solicitation of public comments on the combined proposal.
X021 (same as 51 below): this was clearly confusing to several people. the text now reads as follows:

        While the names proposal calls for the IANA functions operator to be transferred to the PTI, the PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for the stewardship of the PTI. Hence operational roles are maintained. The proposal envisages the names aspect of the current NTIA oversight and contracting authority is transferred to ICANN. The separation of PTI as a subsidiary will ensure the independence of that oversight role from the contractor providing the service.
X022: is now its own paragraph, rather than being the last sentence of the previous paragraph

X026 (similar to 63 below): this is a new paragraph in a new section to address Wolf-Ulrich’s point. it reads:

        After the conclusion of the ICG public comment period and the finalization of CCWG Workstream 1, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described in Part 0, Section IV below, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal, pending the resolution of the outstanding items highlighted in that section.
07: added "(subsidiary)”

09: no change. “expressly conditioned” is text directly from the CWG proposal.

32: parenthetical now reads “(estimated to occur prior to ICANN 54 in October 2015)”

51: now reads as follows:

01             While the names proposal calls for the IANA functions operator to be transferred to the PTI, the PTI will be an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN and ICANN will be responsible for the stewardship of the PTI. Hence operational roles are maintained. The proposal envisages the names aspect of the current NTIA oversight and contracting authority is transferred to ICANN. The separation of PTI as a subsidiary will ensure the independence of that oversight role from the contractor providing the service.
63: this is a new paragraph in a new section to address Wolf-Ulrich’s point. it reads:

01             After the conclusion of the ICG public comment period and the finalization of CCWG Workstream 1, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal, pending the resolution of the outstanding items highlighted in this section.
Thanks,
Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/bf618337/attachment.html>

From apb at cequrux.com  Thu Jul 30 15:26:17 2015
From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:26:17 +0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <20A6C3A3-06A3-48E3-A306-41425149F70D@cooperw.in>
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>
Message-ID: <20150730152617.GS700@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>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 <Country/economy name> - <two letters>. E.g., the entry for Albania would read “Albania - AL”.
>Make the field optional.

This seem fine to me.  I prefer "AL - Albania",
but I won't object to "Albania - AL".

However, please don't rely on icannwiki as an authoritative list of 
ccTLDs.  For example, the list at http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD is 
missing at least the following countries:

    YE - Yemen
    YT - Mayotte
    ZA - South Africa
    ZM - Zambia
    ZW - Zimbabwe

--apb (Alan Barrett)


From paf at frobbit.se  Thu Jul 30 16:02:10 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:02:10 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <20150730152617.GS700@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
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>
	<20150730152617.GS700@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Message-ID: <62C41998-1D77-4628-9D85-525FA82647AE@frobbit.se>

On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:26, Alan Barrett wrote:

> However, please don't rely on icannwiki as an authoritative list of ccTLDs.  For example, the list at http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD is missing at least the following countries:
>
> YE - Yemen
> YT - Mayotte
> ZA - South Africa
> ZM - Zambia
> ZW - Zimbabwe

I have asked secretariat to look at 2-letter codes at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db but look for names of the territories in Wikipedia (as the IANA table does not include that).

I have though personally not proof-read the list yet.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/c7375d1e/attachment.sig>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Thu Jul 30 16:37:53 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:37:53 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
In-Reply-To: <FFB3ED56-D8F5-4DEB-BCF3-6ED22CC51FC7@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <30897027.90.1438274273763.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

On Patrik's point about a letter to NTIA, I suggest we observe the following rules:
- from ICG Chair to Assistant Secretary, kind care of the Chair of the ICANN Board
- no separate letter to ICANN (neither Board nor CEO).

By observing this procedure, we will be consistent with the agreed logic:
- the instructions came from NTIA, whose head is the Assistant Secretary;
- our letter, and the final report, are addressed to the Assistant Secretary VIA THE CHAIR OF THE ICANN BOARD;
- the Chair of the ICANN Board will no doubt forward our report, and the letter, as agreed without any modification; if the ICANN Board has remarks, it will detail them in its own letter of transmission.

Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
À: "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 07:42:04
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review

Hi,

I think I understand what you are referring to Wolf-Ulrich. As co-chairs of ICG we will talk about what the actual practicalities are of the final submission. Remember that the path will be from us, via ICANN Board to NTIA. This, from my perspective, will require a letter that is sent with this report. A letter from Alissa as chair. To some combination of ICANN Board and NTIA. Yes, ICANN Board might have to issue a resolution, or they might already have done so.

So, to conclude, I do not think we need this _now_ but rather this is a detail regarding how to package our submission when we are at ICANN in Dublin. And yes, we chairs have this on our list to come with a proposal of to ICG.

   Patrik

On 30 Jul 2015, at 7:16, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:

> Hi Alissa,
>
> Sorry for not having been clear.
> What I mean is just a general sentence recommending to the NTIA to accept the combined proposal.
>
> From the policy work at ICANN I'm used that a report contains recommendations to the body approving the report.
>
> Isn't this applicable here, too?
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Sent from my personal phone
>
>> Am 30.07.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>
>> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
>>> Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?
>>
>> I don’t understand your question. Could you re-phrase?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>>
>>> Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
>>> My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>> Sent from my personal phone
>>>
>>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>>>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>>>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>>>> (Alan's request)
>>>>
>>>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh
>>>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>>>
>>>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>>>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>
>>>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>>>>
>>>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>>>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>>>>
>>>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>>>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>>>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>>>>
>>>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>>>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>>>> to the public comment web site.
>>>>
>>>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>
>>>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
>>>> <1.txt>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Thu Jul 30 16:40:49 2015
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:40:49 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Proposal_-_24_hrs_review?=
Message-ID: <20150730163628.C00A31C14F1@smtp.notifymdm.com>

+1 joe

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs at dyalog.net]
Received: Thursday, 30 Jul 2015, 6:38PM
To: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se]
CC: IANA etc etc Coordination Group [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review

On Patrik's point about a letter to NTIA, I suggest we observe the following rules:
- from ICG Chair to Assistant Secretary, kind care of the Chair of the ICANN Board
- no separate letter to ICANN (neither Board nor CEO).

By observing this procedure, we will be consistent with the agreed logic:
- the instructions came from NTIA, whose head is the Assistant Secretary;
- our letter, and the final report, are addressed to the Assistant Secretary VIA THE CHAIR OF THE ICANN BOARD;
- the Chair of the ICANN Board will no doubt forward our report, and the letter, as agreed without any modification; if the ICANN Board has remarks, it will detail them in its own letter of transmission.

Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
À: "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 07:42:04
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review

Hi,

I think I understand what you are referring to Wolf-Ulrich. As co-chairs of ICG we will talk about what the actual practicalities are of the final submission. Remember that the path will be from us, via ICANN Board to NTIA. This, from my perspective, will require a letter that is sent with this report. A letter from Alissa as chair. To some combination of ICANN Board and NTIA. Yes, ICANN Board might have to issue a resolution, or they might already have done so.

So, to conclude, I do not think we need this _now_ but rather this is a detail regarding how to package our submission when we are at ICANN in Dublin. And yes, we chairs have this on our list to come with a proposal of to ICG.

   Patrik

On 30 Jul 2015, at 7:16, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:

> Hi Alissa,
>
> Sorry for not having been clear.
> What I mean is just a general sentence recommending to the NTIA to accept the combined proposal.
>
> From the policy work at ICANN I'm used that a report contains recommendations to the body approving the report.
>
> Isn't this applicable here, too?
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Sent from my personal phone
>
>> Am 30.07.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>>
>> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry for coming back with the question of recommendations in the ICG report - a point I raised in an earlier email but don't know what happened with it.
>>> Do we recommend anything ( maybe conditioned) or we going to do this after the public comment period reflecting the input thereof?
>>
>> I don’t understand your question. Could you re-phrase?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>>
>>> Maybe I'm really out of track and it has been already covered or decided how to proceed with - and then forget the question.
>>> My problem is that here in South China I could neither access Dropbox not download the documents sent to me due to limited internet access. So I just couldn't read them. It will be better after my return next week.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>> Sent from my personal phone
>>>
>>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 04:11 schrieb Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Attached is v7-JC of the proposal that includes the following edits:
>>>> - IANA requests diagram percentage of Number-related requests fixed
>>>> - Visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - fixed with key added
>>>> (Alan's request)
>>>>
>>>> Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1ShuICh
>>>> Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2
>>>>
>>>> I note that per Martin's previous response,
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/001164.html,
>>>> no new text will be added to this particular section.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline for any feedback is 05:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>
>>>> 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, July 29, 2015 4:46 AM
>>>> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal - 24 hrs review
>>>>
>>>> Attached is v7 of the proposal, reflecting the changes discussed on the
>>>> call. There are three items not yet reflected:
>>>>
>>>> - Changes to the IANA requests diagram flagged by Alan - Changes to the
>>>> visual summary diagram as discussed with Russ Mundy - Text related to NTIA's
>>>> authorization role to be provided on the mailing list by Martin
>>>>
>>>> I believe everything else has been captured in v7. The changes are also
>>>> reflected in the executive summary and have been propagated as appropriate
>>>> to the public comment web site.
>>>>
>>>> We will turn around the diagram changes as soon as we can.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline for any final feedback is 5:00 UTC on July 30.
>>>>
>>>> Jennifer: please add this document to Dropbox.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>> <combined-proposal-v7-JC.doc>
>>>> <1.txt>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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  Thu Jul 30 16:41:40 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:41:40 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <62C41998-1D77-4628-9D85-525FA82647AE@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <11736793.105.1438274500176.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Using two important criteria (the perspective of the global Internet user, and accepted practice in international relations), I suggest our table should provide "country/economy" name AND 2-letter code (ISO), but not ISO code INSTEAD OF "country/economy" name.

Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
À: "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:02:10
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field

On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:26, Alan Barrett wrote:

> However, please don't rely on icannwiki as an authoritative list of ccTLDs.  For example, the list at http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD is missing at least the following countries:
>
> YE - Yemen
> YT - Mayotte
> ZA - South Africa
> ZM - Zambia
> ZW - Zimbabwe

I have asked secretariat to look at 2-letter codes at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db but look for names of the territories in Wikipedia (as the IANA table does not include that).

I have though personally not proof-read the list yet.

   Patrik

_______________________________________________
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 Jul 30 16:45:50 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:45:50 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <11736793.105.1438274500176.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <11736793.105.1438274500176.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <C6EAFDD8-609A-46AE-93CF-68E60756287B@frobbit.se>

On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:41, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:

> Using two important criteria (the perspective of the global Internet user, and accepted practice in international relations), I suggest our table should provide "country/economy" name AND 2-letter code (ISO), but not ISO code INSTEAD OF "country/economy" name.

This is what we do, but we will use ccTLD code, not ISO code.

   Patrik

> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
> À: "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:02:10
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
>
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:26, Alan Barrett wrote:
>
>> However, please don't rely on icannwiki as an authoritative list of ccTLDs.  For example, the list at http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD is missing at least the following countries:
>>
>> YE - Yemen
>> YT - Mayotte
>> ZA - South Africa
>> ZM - Zambia
>> ZW - Zimbabwe
>
> I have asked secretariat to look at 2-letter codes at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db but look for names of the territories in Wikipedia (as the IANA table does not include that).
>
> I have though personally not proof-read the list yet.
>
> Patrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/ea93fc51/attachment.sig>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Thu Jul 30 16:53:08 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:53:08 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <C6EAFDD8-609A-46AE-93CF-68E60756287B@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <12378792.182.1438275185623.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Yes Patrik, ccTLD code is fine with me.
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:45:50
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field

On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:41, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:

> Using two important criteria (the perspective of the global Internet user, and accepted practice in international relations), I suggest our table should provide "country/economy" name AND 2-letter code (ISO), but not ISO code INSTEAD OF "country/economy" name.

This is what we do, but we will use ccTLD code, not ISO code.

   Patrik

> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
> À: "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:02:10
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
>
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:26, Alan Barrett wrote:
>
>> However, please don't rely on icannwiki as an authoritative list of ccTLDs.  For example, the list at http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD is missing at least the following countries:
>>
>> YE - Yemen
>> YT - Mayotte
>> ZA - South Africa
>> ZM - Zambia
>> ZW - Zimbabwe
>
> I have asked secretariat to look at 2-letter codes at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db but look for names of the territories in Wikipedia (as the IANA table does not include that).
>
> I have though personally not proof-read the list yet.
>
> Patrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jul 30 17:23:50 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:23:50 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <D211540A-E36F-4C3D-B818-63070777E70B@tislabs.com>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
	<57A07AFF-12F3-4B57-A7FE-50E4494D2D47@cooperw.in>
	<D211540A-E36F-4C3D-B818-63070777E70B@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <9AB5F558-6BFA-429D-BDF0-AC553D1C891B@cooperw.in>

Thanks Russ. Comments below.

On Jul 29, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:

> 
>>> 
>>> - The use of different colors for the different OC and combined proposals is excellent - I think that it would be good to use a similar background shading or a object fill color for the operational community proposals throughout the deck.
>> 
>> I’m not sure I understand. The objects already are color-coded throughout the deck. I.e., parameters are light blue, numbers are green, and names are purple.
> 
> What I had in mind was that the respective image shapes, e.g. black boxes on slide 3 all have the same black fill color with the ‘dots & dashes’ in the color of the respective groups indicated on slide 2 - my suggestion was to change the fill color to the ‘group color’ instead of using black for all of them.  An alternative would be to add another ‘background object’ such as a cloud or other shape that was the ‘group color’ behind each of the current respective black boxes.  An example would be on slide 7 to have all of the fonts, lines & circles for a particular OC be changed to the respective ‘group color’ or have a background object in the respective ‘group color’  In other words, a more dominant use of colors will help differentiate the OCs.
> 
> Alan (I think) also made some comments about color use being inconsistent so I looked again and now see that there is not consistent use of colors (fills, boarders of shapes, fonts, etc) in various parts of the slide deck.  E.g., in the Names section (slides 8 -16), the ICANN, IANA/PTI objects are all filled with the ‘group color’ but in other sections (except for slide 28), the ICANN/IANA objects have no (or white) fill color.  Although the ‘group color’ is present in objects representing the OCs activities, it is used differently in each one.  Also, the NTIA object in the different sections does not have consistent fill/boarder/font use.  I suspect that most of the inconsistencies came from the individual OCs reviewing their own sections but not the full set of slides.
> 
> I do not know if there is time to make fixes to these inconsistencies but I do think that doing so would avoid or eliminate some questions or comments that are just not relevant.  If there’s not enough time, I can live with the inconsistencies. 

I will include a general comment along the lines above back to the designers and see if they can improve the color usage.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> - At some point, the deck should mention that IANA operations need to continue to operate stably, securely and resiliently through all transitiion activities.  Although it was not explicitly mentioned, it was inferred in the March 2014 announcement so perhaps slide 5 could add the following in the left column:
>>> 
>>> "The IANA functions must continue to operate securely, stably and resiliently through entire process of transition.”
>> 
>> I would not feel comfortable putting this text there because it does not actually appear in the NTIA announcement. I agree that this is important but I don’t think we should attribute it to NTIA in that way. Maybe we could write “Continued security, stability and resilience of the IANA functions” along the bottom of slide 6?
> 
> Good point - I’d fine with text on the bottom of slide 6.  How does “On-going secure, stable and resilient IANA functions” with an arrow from left to right under or behind the text?

Ok

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Secondly, some specific suggestions for individual slides.  I tried to minimize the structural changes to the slides so the suggestions would be straight forward to incorporate - or reject:
>>> 
>>> - Slide 3:  At the top of the slide, the Operational Communitees should be shown seperately - perhaps with a surrounding box indicating "IANA Customers".   Suggest using "Names Community" (also change Slide 10), "Numbers Community" (also change Slide 19) and "Protocol Parameters Community" (perhaps change Slide 25).
>> 
>> Since this is the very first substantive slide, I’m not sure it makes sense to dive right into that level of detail. Furthermore, this would be hard to depict for protocol parameters since lots of registries can be populated by anyone who wants to register something and those people may not really consider themselves part of the “protocol parameters community.” I’d rather opt for simplicity in slide 3.
> 
> I can see the point that simple is better but the problem I see in this case is that it would give the impression that all IANA customers are alike and ask for the same type of service which is clearly not the case - it might also motivate questions like “Why did you ask for three proposals?”.  I do think it would be better to show the separate communities but as a minimum, there should be three “talk boxes” (vice 4), i.e. one in each ‘group color’.

Ok

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -- It's unclear what the three devices at the bottom of the slide represent but I think they are intended to indicate those that use information maintained and provided by IANA.  If this is a correct interpretation, suggest adding text under the devices that says (something like): "Consumbers = Any Internet User"  or something equivalent
>> 
>> I think this is something the speaker can explain, i.e., that the identifiers get used in software running on Internet users’ devices.
> 
> I found this part of the slide confusing in that it really wasn’t clear why the devices were on the slide.  I agree that the speaker can explain but I expect that the slides will be used by many people beyond the webinars and think that it would be good for them to stand on their own so having text like “Any Internet User” would be useful when the slides show up on some random web/blog site.

Ok, I’ll ask the designers to try to clarify this.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> - Slide 5: see second general comment above.
>>> 
>>> - There should be a slide added between the current slide 8 and slide 9 that actually says what the IANA names functions are - the illustrations of current slides 9 and 10 are examples of data but do not show what is involved with maintenance of the DNS Root Zone.  I suggest that text list be derived from the recent ICANN publication "The IANA Functions - An Introduction to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions" from the lists on pages 14, 17 & 18  that is available at:
>>> 
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-functions-15jun15-en.pdf
>>> 
>>> Other potential sources for the list of functions are the Names proposal paragraph P1.I.A. (1003)  or SSAC reports SAC-067 and SAC-068
>> 
>> Could you provide exactly the list of bullets you would want to see?
> 
> (built from Names proposal Annex A, some consolidation of that list)
> 
> Title:  What are the IANA functions related to names?
> 
> Root Zone Change Request Management
> 
> Root Zone WHOIS Change Request Management
> 
> Delegation and Redelegation of TLDs
> 
> Root DNSSEC Key Management
> 
> Management of Repository of IDN Practices
> 
> Other Root Zone Related activities

Thanks. I think this additional slide will flow more easily between 10 and 11 rather than between 8 and 9, if that is ok with you. At this point in the deck we won’t really have explained what the DNS is, so I’d rather not jump right into Root Zone Change Request Management, etc.

>> 
>>> 
>>> - Slide 28 provides an excellent overview of providing an overall illustration of the oversight and accountability aspects of the three operational communities.  However, it does not show any of the regular, on-going interactions of the OCs.  It is, in fact, a very different perspective on the IANA functions than is provided in Slide 3.  This could incorrectly infer that the OCs proposals and transition will result in massive changes from how things work today.  To avoid this incorrect inference, I would suggest that the section needs to either have two slides, one to illustrate how the regular, on-going functions are accomplished by replicating Slide 3 or add text to the current slide that says "this illustrates accountability and oversight" and points to Slide 3 as the illustration of the regular, on-going functions.
>> 
>> Per our discussion on the call, would it work for you if we title this slide “Oversight components in the combined proposal”?
> 
> Yes, that is a good change to the title.  I would like to see this slide also include the other changes made in paragraph 15 of the v7-JC.doc if that’s feasible.

Ok, I’ll see if the designers can add the additional sentence to the bottom of the slide.

Thanks,
Alissa



From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Jul 30 17:32:19 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:32:19 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Running list of slide deck edits
Message-ID: <D3E8C0CD-E269-4980-9BE9-24A7C4382A49@cooperw.in>

I’ve gathered below the running list of slide deck edits. The cutoff for feedback on the deck is 20:00 UTC today. I have responded to all the emails about this in the other thread. Paul, Joe, Martin — please have a look over there as there are outstanding questions arising from your comments.

I will also include a note to the designers about strengthening and unifying the color usage in the deck per Alan/Russ Mundy.

Slide 3:
- Change "make change requests" to "submit requests"

- For the "talk boxes" that sit above the text that says "IANA customers make change requests," it would be better if there were only three talk boxes and if they were color-coded using the group colors, one in each color.

- It's not obvious that the devices at the bottom of the slide belong to users out on the Internet. It would help to either depict that graphically (maybe with little people using the devices or near the device?) or add the term "Internet users" somewhere around the bottom of the slide to make it more clear that what is being shown is the use of IANA values in software on regular Internet users' devices.

Slide 4:
- Add a legend that expands the acronyms NTIA, IANA, and ICANN

Slide 5:
- Change "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS" to "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS)"

Slide 6:
- Change "Protocol" to "Protocol Parameters"

- Strike all three instances of the word “Database.” So the labels would just be “Names,” “Numbers” and “Protocol Parameters.”

- Expand the acronym "ICG" on first use.

- Make the whole timeline black rather than changing colors in 2015.

- Add the following text to the bottom of the slide with an arrow from left to right under or behind the text: “Ongoing secure, stable, and resilient IANA functions”

Slide 10:
- Change "IANA customers make change requests" to “Names community members submit requests”

- Change the word "Database" to "DNS Root Zone and WHOIS"

Add a new slide between slides 10 and 11 as follows:

Title:  
What are the IANA functions related to names?

Bulleted list:
Root Zone Change Request Management

Root Zone WHOIS Change Request Management

Delegation and Redelegation of TLDs

Root DNSSEC Key Management

Management of Repository of IDN Practices

Other Root Zone related activities

Slide 13:
- Replace the text below "MISSION" with the following: "Established to monitor the performance of the IANA naming functions and escalate non-remediated issues."

Slide 15: 
- Add a box with the following text below the CSC box:

“Empowerment of the Special IFR to determine that a separation process is necessary” 

with “separation process” in bold

Slide 18:
- Change "IP and AS Numbers to the Regional Internet Registries" to "Internet Protocol (IP) and Autonomous System (AS) Numbers to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)"

Slide 19:
- Delete the two asterisks

Slide 24:
- Some folks find it hard to read the white text on the blue background. Could the text color be changed in the blue boxes?

Slide 26:
- Could we add a visualization that shows the community expectations being added on to the existing MoU and SLAs?

Slide 28: 
- Change "vmetrics" to "metrics”.

- Change title to “Oversight components in the combined proposal”

- Add this sentence to the bottom of the slide: "Operational interactions between the communities and the IANA functions operator are not pictured."



From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk  Thu Jul 30 18:41:28 2015
From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:41:28 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Running list of slide deck edits
In-Reply-To: <D3E8C0CD-E269-4980-9BE9-24A7C4382A49@cooperw.in>
References: <D3E8C0CD-E269-4980-9BE9-24A7C4382A49@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE0E2D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>

Sorry, Alissa, I wasn't aware that I had made any comments that needed final agreement from me - I just tried to clarify on NTIA's operational authorisation role and the purpose of the CSC (slide 13).  

Like Elise I could live with either, but I think that the first formulation you proposed is more accurate:  a key part of the CSC role is to work with the PTI to ensure that PTI is remedying service failures.  Yes, it has an escalation role, but the proposal also includes a significant process for promoting remedial action.

So I'd prefer "Established to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA naming functions." 

Was that the only bit outstanding from me?

Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: 30 July 2015 18:32
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Cc: Paul Wilson; Martin Boyle; joseph alhadeff
Subject: Running list of slide deck edits

I've gathered below the running list of slide deck edits. The cutoff for feedback on the deck is 20:00 UTC today. I have responded to all the emails about this in the other thread. Paul, Joe, Martin - please have a look over there as there are outstanding questions arising from your comments.

I will also include a note to the designers about strengthening and unifying the color usage in the deck per Alan/Russ Mundy.

Slide 3:
- Change "make change requests" to "submit requests"

- For the "talk boxes" that sit above the text that says "IANA customers make change requests," it would be better if there were only three talk boxes and if they were color-coded using the group colors, one in each color.

- It's not obvious that the devices at the bottom of the slide belong to users out on the Internet. It would help to either depict that graphically (maybe with little people using the devices or near the device?) or add the term "Internet users" somewhere around the bottom of the slide to make it more clear that what is being shown is the use of IANA values in software on regular Internet users' devices.

Slide 4:
- Add a legend that expands the acronyms NTIA, IANA, and ICANN

Slide 5:
- Change "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS" to "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS)"

Slide 6:
- Change "Protocol" to "Protocol Parameters"

- Strike all three instances of the word "Database." So the labels would just be "Names," "Numbers" and "Protocol Parameters."

- Expand the acronym "ICG" on first use.

- Make the whole timeline black rather than changing colors in 2015.

- Add the following text to the bottom of the slide with an arrow from left to right under or behind the text: "Ongoing secure, stable, and resilient IANA functions"

Slide 10:
- Change "IANA customers make change requests" to "Names community members submit requests"

- Change the word "Database" to "DNS Root Zone and WHOIS"

Add a new slide between slides 10 and 11 as follows:

Title:  
What are the IANA functions related to names?

Bulleted list:
Root Zone Change Request Management

Root Zone WHOIS Change Request Management

Delegation and Redelegation of TLDs

Root DNSSEC Key Management

Management of Repository of IDN Practices

Other Root Zone related activities

Slide 13:
- Replace the text below "MISSION" with the following: "Established to monitor the performance of the IANA naming functions and escalate non-remediated issues."

Slide 15: 
- Add a box with the following text below the CSC box:

"Empowerment of the Special IFR to determine that a separation process is necessary" 

with "separation process" in bold

Slide 18:
- Change "IP and AS Numbers to the Regional Internet Registries" to "Internet Protocol (IP) and Autonomous System (AS) Numbers to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)"

Slide 19:
- Delete the two asterisks

Slide 24:
- Some folks find it hard to read the white text on the blue background. Could the text color be changed in the blue boxes?

Slide 26:
- Could we add a visualization that shows the community expectations being added on to the existing MoU and SLAs?

Slide 28: 
- Change "vmetrics" to "metrics".

- Change title to "Oversight components in the combined proposal"

- Add this sentence to the bottom of the slide: "Operational interactions between the communities and the IANA functions operator are not pictured."



From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Jul 30 18:42:30 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:42:30 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Running list of slide deck edits
In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE0E2D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
References: <D3E8C0CD-E269-4980-9BE9-24A7C4382A49@cooperw.in>
	<4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AE0E2D@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <CB8DAB94-0C44-4657-81D0-1AAD62DF9E27@cooperw.in>

On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:

> Sorry, Alissa, I wasn't aware that I had made any comments that needed final agreement from me - I just tried to clarify on NTIA's operational authorisation role and the purpose of the CSC (slide 13).  
> 
> Like Elise I could live with either, but I think that the first formulation you proposed is more accurate:  a key part of the CSC role is to work with the PTI to ensure that PTI is remedying service failures.  Yes, it has an escalation role, but the proposal also includes a significant process for promoting remedial action.
> 
> So I'd prefer "Established to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA naming functions." 
> 
> Was that the only bit outstanding from me?

Yes, thanks. I will update the running list of edits to reflect this.

Alissa

> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
> Sent: 30 July 2015 18:32
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Cc: Paul Wilson; Martin Boyle; joseph alhadeff
> Subject: Running list of slide deck edits
> 
> I've gathered below the running list of slide deck edits. The cutoff for feedback on the deck is 20:00 UTC today. I have responded to all the emails about this in the other thread. Paul, Joe, Martin - please have a look over there as there are outstanding questions arising from your comments.
> 
> I will also include a note to the designers about strengthening and unifying the color usage in the deck per Alan/Russ Mundy.
> 
> Slide 3:
> - Change "make change requests" to "submit requests"
> 
> - For the "talk boxes" that sit above the text that says "IANA customers make change requests," it would be better if there were only three talk boxes and if they were color-coded using the group colors, one in each color.
> 
> - It's not obvious that the devices at the bottom of the slide belong to users out on the Internet. It would help to either depict that graphically (maybe with little people using the devices or near the device?) or add the term "Internet users" somewhere around the bottom of the slide to make it more clear that what is being shown is the use of IANA values in software on regular Internet users' devices.
> 
> Slide 4:
> - Add a legend that expands the acronyms NTIA, IANA, and ICANN
> 
> Slide 5:
> - Change "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS" to "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS)"
> 
> Slide 6:
> - Change "Protocol" to "Protocol Parameters"
> 
> - Strike all three instances of the word "Database." So the labels would just be "Names," "Numbers" and "Protocol Parameters."
> 
> - Expand the acronym "ICG" on first use.
> 
> - Make the whole timeline black rather than changing colors in 2015.
> 
> - Add the following text to the bottom of the slide with an arrow from left to right under or behind the text: "Ongoing secure, stable, and resilient IANA functions"
> 
> Slide 10:
> - Change "IANA customers make change requests" to "Names community members submit requests"
> 
> - Change the word "Database" to "DNS Root Zone and WHOIS"
> 
> Add a new slide between slides 10 and 11 as follows:
> 
> Title:  
> What are the IANA functions related to names?
> 
> Bulleted list:
> Root Zone Change Request Management
> 
> Root Zone WHOIS Change Request Management
> 
> Delegation and Redelegation of TLDs
> 
> Root DNSSEC Key Management
> 
> Management of Repository of IDN Practices
> 
> Other Root Zone related activities
> 
> Slide 13:
> - Replace the text below "MISSION" with the following: "Established to monitor the performance of the IANA naming functions and escalate non-remediated issues."
> 
> Slide 15: 
> - Add a box with the following text below the CSC box:
> 
> "Empowerment of the Special IFR to determine that a separation process is necessary" 
> 
> with "separation process" in bold
> 
> Slide 18:
> - Change "IP and AS Numbers to the Regional Internet Registries" to "Internet Protocol (IP) and Autonomous System (AS) Numbers to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)"
> 
> Slide 19:
> - Delete the two asterisks
> 
> Slide 24:
> - Some folks find it hard to read the white text on the blue background. Could the text color be changed in the blue boxes?
> 
> Slide 26:
> - Could we add a visualization that shows the community expectations being added on to the existing MoU and SLAs?
> 
> Slide 28: 
> - Change "vmetrics" to "metrics".
> 
> - Change title to "Oversight components in the combined proposal"
> 
> - Add this sentence to the bottom of the slide: "Operational interactions between the communities and the IANA functions operator are not pictured."
> 



From paf at frobbit.se  Thu Jul 30 19:16:14 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 21:16:14 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <12378792.182.1438275185623.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <12378792.182.1438275185623.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <97162A42-5F55-4649-803B-AA69A4DBE16B@frobbit.se>

Just so people understand...

3166 have for example GB while ccTLD use UK.

And neither, as Xiaodong pointed out, are list of countries, but instead of economies and/or territories.

   Patrik

On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:53, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:

> Yes Patrik, ccTLD code is fine with me.
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:45:50
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
>
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:41, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>
>> Using two important criteria (the perspective of the global Internet user, and accepted practice in international relations), I suggest our table should provide "country/economy" name AND 2-letter code (ISO), but not ISO code INSTEAD OF "country/economy" name.
>
> This is what we do, but we will use ccTLD code, not ISO code.
>
> Patrik
>
>> Jean-Jacques.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
>> À: "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:02:10
>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:26, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>
>>> However, please don't rely on icannwiki as an authoritative list of ccTLDs.  For example, the list at http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD is missing at least the following countries:
>>>
>>> YE - Yemen
>>> YT - Mayotte
>>> ZA - South Africa
>>> ZM - Zambia
>>> ZW - Zimbabwe
>>
>> I have asked secretariat to look at 2-letter codes at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db but look for names of the territories in Wikipedia (as the IANA table does not include that).
>>
>> I have though personally not proof-read the list yet.
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/42039844/attachment.sig>

From keith at internetnz.net.nz  Thu Jul 30 23:03:42 2015
From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:03:42 +1200
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <97162A42-5F55-4649-803B-AA69A4DBE16B@frobbit.se>
References: <12378792.182.1438275185623.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<97162A42-5F55-4649-803B-AA69A4DBE16B@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <55BAAD4E.50501@internetnz.net.nz>

Following on from this, just for the sake of completeness of facts, we 
can note that UK, EU and various other ccTLD codes arise from the 
ISO-3166-Reserved list, not the ISO-3166-2letter list. And RFC1591 which 
codified the issuance of ccTLDs only stated the ISO-3166 as the source. 
There is no specific "ISO-3166" list per se, there are a number of 
ISO-3166-* lists. The most comprehensive is the ISO 3166-1-alpha-2-codes 
which is well described at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 which includes the 
lists for:
- officially assigned
- user assigned
- exceptionally reserved
- Transitionally reserved: deleted but reserved transitionally.
- Indeterminately reserved: used in coding systems
- Not used: not used in ISO 3166-1 due to intellectual property
- Unassigned

All that aside, I like the proposal that we use "the ccTLD code". And if 
we are using the word "country" we might use the words "country or 
territory" to be more inclusive...

Cheers

Keith



On 31/07/2015 7:16 a.m., Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Just so people understand...
>
> 3166 have for example GB while ccTLD use UK.
>
> And neither, as Xiaodong pointed out, are list of countries, but instead of economies and/or territories.
>
>     Patrik
>
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:53, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>
>> Yes Patrik, ccTLD code is fine with me.
>> Jean-Jacques.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:45:50
>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:41, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>
>>> Using two important criteria (the perspective of the global Internet user, and accepted practice in international relations), I suggest our table should provide "country/economy" name AND 2-letter code (ISO), but not ISO code INSTEAD OF "country/economy" name.
>>
>> This is what we do, but we will use ccTLD code, not ISO code.
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
>>> À: "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:02:10
>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
>>>
>>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:26, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, please don't rely on icannwiki as an authoritative list of ccTLDs.  For example, the list at http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD is missing at least the following countries:
>>>>
>>>> YE - Yemen
>>>> YT - Mayotte
>>>> ZA - South Africa
>>>> ZM - Zambia
>>>> ZW - Zimbabwe
>>>
>>> I have asked secretariat to look at 2-letter codes at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db but look for names of the territories in Wikipedia (as the IANA table does not include that).
>>>
>>> I have though personally not proof-read the list yet.
>>>
>>> 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 jen at icgsec.asia  Thu Jul 30 23:07:29 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:07:29 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] New tweets from ICG
Message-ID: <06c301d0cb1c$82e4f430$88aedc90$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

The ICG has just tweeted the following message

 

"Proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions will be out
for public comment July 31 to September 8 #IANASteward #IANA #ICANN"

 

The links to the different language versions are below.

 

EN https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/626889170754142213 

AR https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/626889245324640256 

ES https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/626889924046925824 

FR https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/626889245324640256 

PT https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/626890116225761280 

RU https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/626889529010585602 

ZH https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/626889637995413504 

 

Please share with your communities and retweet!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150730/3aca7209/attachment.html>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Fri Jul 31 07:33:46 2015
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:33:46 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
In-Reply-To: <55BAAD4E.50501@internetnz.net.nz>
Message-ID: <13278932.15.1438328022008.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

@Keith +1, let's aim to be complete and accurate.
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Keith Davidson" <keith at internetnz.net.nz>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 31 Juillet 2015 01:03:42
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field

Following on from this, just for the sake of completeness of facts, we 
can note that UK, EU and various other ccTLD codes arise from the 
ISO-3166-Reserved list, not the ISO-3166-2letter list. And RFC1591 which 
codified the issuance of ccTLDs only stated the ISO-3166 as the source. 
There is no specific "ISO-3166" list per se, there are a number of 
ISO-3166-* lists. The most comprehensive is the ISO 3166-1-alpha-2-codes 
which is well described at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 which includes the 
lists for:
- officially assigned
- user assigned
- exceptionally reserved
- Transitionally reserved: deleted but reserved transitionally.
- Indeterminately reserved: used in coding systems
- Not used: not used in ISO 3166-1 due to intellectual property
- Unassigned

All that aside, I like the proposal that we use "the ccTLD code". And if 
we are using the word "country" we might use the words "country or 
territory" to be more inclusive...

Cheers

Keith



On 31/07/2015 7:16 a.m., Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Just so people understand...
>
> 3166 have for example GB while ccTLD use UK.
>
> And neither, as Xiaodong pointed out, are list of countries, but instead of economies and/or territories.
>
>     Patrik
>
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:53, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>
>> Yes Patrik, ccTLD code is fine with me.
>> Jean-Jacques.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:45:50
>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:41, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>
>>> Using two important criteria (the perspective of the global Internet user, and accepted practice in international relations), I suggest our table should provide "country/economy" name AND 2-letter code (ISO), but not ISO code INSTEAD OF "country/economy" name.
>>
>> This is what we do, but we will use ccTLD code, not ISO code.
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
>>> À: "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
>>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 18:02:10
>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Country" field
>>>
>>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:26, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, please don't rely on icannwiki as an authoritative list of ccTLDs.  For example, the list at http://icannwiki.com/CcTLD is missing at least the following countries:
>>>>
>>>> YE - Yemen
>>>> YT - Mayotte
>>>> ZA - South Africa
>>>> ZM - Zambia
>>>> ZW - Zimbabwe
>>>
>>> I have asked secretariat to look at 2-letter codes at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db but look for names of the territories in Wikipedia (as the IANA table does not include that).
>>>
>>> I have though personally not proof-read the list yet.
>>>
>>> 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  Fri Jul 31 11:38:09 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:38:09 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Announces Call for Public Comment on IANA
	Stewardship Transition Proposal
Message-ID: <00f101d0cb85$61166190$234324b0$@icgsec.asia>

The ICG is asking the public to review 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. Comments are
due by the deadline of 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.

Public comment web site:  <https://comments.ianacg.org/>
https://comments.ianacg.org
Webinar details:
<https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-t
o-host-webinars-in-conjunction-with-call-for-public-comment>
https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-to
-host-webinars-in-conjunction-with-call-for-public-comment

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/64147768/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 31 11:39:51 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:39:51 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
	to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment
Message-ID: <00f601d0cb85$9dc13c00$d943b400$@icgsec.asia>

The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) announces today that it will hold two webinars regarding 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 webinars will help the public understand the proposal, the purpose of the ICG’s public comment period, and how to provide public comments. Topics covered will include:

*        What are the IANA functions?

*        What is the IANA stewardship transition?

*        What is being proposed for the transition of the IANA stewardship?

*        Why is the ICG seeking public comments?

*        What should commenters focus on?

The ICG will hold two webinars at different times to facilitate participation across the time zones:

*        Thursday 6 August 2015 from 19:00-20:30 UTC (time zone convertor here:  <http://icgsec.asia/1fB5GMF> http://icgsec.asia/1fB5GMF)

*        Friday 7 August 2015 from 11:00-12:30 UTC (time zone convertor here:  <http://icgsec.asia/1IpVZfn> http://icgsec.asia/1IpVZfn)

The webinars will include about 45 minutes of presentation material and 45 minutes of Q&A.
Webinar details
The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room  <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed.  Live interpretation will be available through Adigo Bridge dial-in numbers using Conference ID codes listed below.
A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here:  <http://adigo.com/icann/> http://adigo.com/icann/. Should there be no appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, the ICG Secretariat in conjunction with ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual – please send dial-out requests to the ICG Secretariat at  <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> admin at icgsec.asia. Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below:

*        Français – Conference ID: 75929475

*        Español – Conference ID: 68385764

*        中文 – Conference ID: 825702

*        Pусский – Conference ID: 345720

*        العربية – Conference ID: 82855066

*        Português – Conference ID: 759752

Participants who are interested in an English line but are unable to join by way of the Virtual Meeting Room may request a dial-out service by contacting the ICG Secretariat at  <mailto:admin at icgsec.asia> admin at icgsec.asia.

For further information about the IANA stewardship transition proposal, please see  <https://comments.ianacg.org/> https://comments.ianacg.org.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/4656a1a3/attachment.html>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 31 12:05:55 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:05:55 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] New tweets from the ICG - public comment period
	launch and webinar details
Message-ID: <012e01d0cb89$41c286d0$c5479470$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

The ICG public comment period has launched.  Webinar details are also
available.  See the ICG social media posts below:

 

Public Comment

Tweet https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/627083362461687808 

 FB https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1684299178465381 

 

Webinar Details

Tweet https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/627083417251938304 

FB https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1684299245132041 

 

Please share with your communities, retweet and broadcast!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/668c300d/attachment.html>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Fri Jul 31 12:23:40 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:23:40 +0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] New tweets from the ICG - public comment period
	launch and webinar details
In-Reply-To: <012e01d0cb89$41c286d0$c5479470$@icgsec.asia>
References: <012e01d0cb89$41c286d0$c5479470$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <87738293-71E0-4B58-80E5-62F9758BAFC2@piuha.net>

Thanks! Shared.

(Also, I wanted to know when the press release will be going out?)

Jari

On 31 Jul 2015, at 15:05, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> The ICG public comment period has launched.  Webinar details are also available.  See the ICG social media posts below:
> 
> Public Comment
> Tweet https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/627083362461687808
>  FB https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1684299178465381
> 
> Webinar Details
> Tweet https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/627083417251938304
> FB https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1684299245132041
> 
> Please share with your communities, retweet and broadcast!
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Jennifer
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/ec11b7ab/attachment.sig>

From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Fri Jul 31 13:36:06 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:36:06 +0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
	(ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <00f601d0cb85$9dc13c00$d943b400$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00f601d0cb85$9dc13c00$d943b400$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <C24BEC81-B5CA-469B-9F8E-A5B0B87B23E3@piuha.net>

Jennifer,

A small question or a request:

> 
> A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here: http://adigo.com/icann/. Should there be no appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, the ICG Secretariat in conjunction with ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual – please send dial-out requests to the ICG Secretariat at admin at icgsec.asia. Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below:
> 
> ·        Français – Conference ID: 75929475
> ·        Español – Conference ID: 68385764
> ·        中文 – Conference ID: 825702
> ·        Pусский – Conference ID: 345720
> ·        العربية – Conference ID: 82855066
> ·        Português – Conference ID: 759752
> Participants who are interested in an English line but are unable to join by way of the Virtual Meeting Room may request a dial-out service by contacting the ICG Secretariat at admin at icgsec.asia.

I thought the above was slightly difficult to understand, or, alternatively, we’re missing something.

Do we have an english dial-in number? I’m asking because I’m likely to be one of the persons who might not have Internet at the time the call is going on, and while I understand I could ask for dial-out, it is a hassle for both of us. I’m guessing I’m not the only one.

I’d like to suggest that unless it is somehow technically difficult, we provide an dial-in number for english as well. And if we already have that… make it clear that virtual meeting room and the dial-in are both available.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/ab598ca9/attachment.sig>

From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 31 14:30:25 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:30:25 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
	(ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <C24BEC81-B5CA-469B-9F8E-A5B0B87B23E3@piuha.net>
References: <00f601d0cb85$9dc13c00$d943b400$@icgsec.asia>
	<C24BEC81-B5CA-469B-9F8E-A5B0B87B23E3@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <01bc01d0cb9d$72266fd0$56734f70$@icgsec.asia>

Hi Jari,

We have use the same information as we have given out in the ICG calls previously.  I will double check - and if providing the English dial in code does not create technical difficulties I will amend the webinar announcement with this information.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] 
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:36 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment

Jennifer,

A small question or a request:

> 
> A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here: http://adigo.com/icann/. Should there be no appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, the ICG Secretariat in conjunction with ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual – please send dial-out requests to the ICG Secretariat at admin at icgsec.asia. Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below:
> 
> ·        Français – Conference ID: 75929475
> ·        Español – Conference ID: 68385764
> ·        中文 – Conference ID: 825702
> ·        Pусский – Conference ID: 345720
> ·        العربية – Conference ID: 82855066
> ·        Português – Conference ID: 759752
> Participants who are interested in an English line but are unable to join by way of the Virtual Meeting Room may request a dial-out service by contacting the ICG Secretariat at admin at icgsec.asia.

I thought the above was slightly difficult to understand, or, alternatively, we’re missing something.

Do we have an english dial-in number? I’m asking because I’m likely to be one of the persons who might not have Internet at the time the call is going on, and while I understand I could ask for dial-out, it is a hassle for both of us. I’m guessing I’m not the only one.

I’d like to suggest that unless it is somehow technically difficult, we provide an dial-in number for english as well. And if we already have that… make it clear that virtual meeting room and the dial-in are both available.

Jari




From jari.arkko at piuha.net  Fri Jul 31 14:40:09 2015
From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:40:09 +0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
	(ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <01bc01d0cb9d$72266fd0$56734f70$@icgsec.asia>
References: <00f601d0cb85$9dc13c00$d943b400$@icgsec.asia>
	<C24BEC81-B5CA-469B-9F8E-A5B0B87B23E3@piuha.net>
	<01bc01d0cb9d$72266fd0$56734f70$@icgsec.asia>
Message-ID: <8E71A798-604C-4D46-AA0E-86D9AC033429@piuha.net>


> We have use the same information as we have given out in the ICG calls previously.

yes, I noticed when I was searching for the dial-in information :-)

>  I will double check - and if providing the English dial in code does not create technical difficulties I will amend the webinar announcement with this information.

Great. It would be appreciated, I think. (I don’t matter but maybe there are other people in similar circumstances.) Thanks.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/f43b9572/attachment.sig>

From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Fri Jul 31 15:41:15 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:41:15 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] back in action, more or less
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB5898390C310B73BF4D250FBAC8A0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/ab3fa7dd/attachment.html>

From mundy at tislabs.com  Fri Jul 31 15:45:55 2015
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:45:55 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline
In-Reply-To: <9AB5F558-6BFA-429D-BDF0-AC553D1C891B@cooperw.in>
References: <68ABED8D-231F-4512-9258-E96E288290A6@cooperw.in>
	<A47A1417-7162-4AE9-804F-73B4CA651BDC@tislabs.com>
	<57A07AFF-12F3-4B57-A7FE-50E4494D2D47@cooperw.in>
	<D211540A-E36F-4C3D-B818-63070777E70B@tislabs.com>
	<9AB5F558-6BFA-429D-BDF0-AC553D1C891B@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <FF00849C-AE81-4ECF-8E04-58C506AE909F@tislabs.com>

Alissa, Thanks for all your work on the slides - these changes take care of the points I raised.  Russ

On Jul 30, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Thanks Russ. Comments below.
> 
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - The use of different colors for the different OC and combined proposals is excellent - I think that it would be good to use a similar background shading or a object fill color for the operational community proposals throughout the deck.
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure I understand. The objects already are color-coded throughout the deck. I.e., parameters are light blue, numbers are green, and names are purple.
>> 
>> What I had in mind was that the respective image shapes, e.g. black boxes on slide 3 all have the same black fill color with the ‘dots & dashes’ in the color of the respective groups indicated on slide 2 - my suggestion was to change the fill color to the ‘group color’ instead of using black for all of them.  An alternative would be to add another ‘background object’ such as a cloud or other shape that was the ‘group color’ behind each of the current respective black boxes.  An example would be on slide 7 to have all of the fonts, lines & circles for a particular OC be changed to the respective ‘group color’ or have a background object in the respective ‘group color’  In other words, a more dominant use of colors will help differentiate the OCs.
>> 
>> Alan (I think) also made some comments about color use being inconsistent so I looked again and now see that there is not consistent use of colors (fills, boarders of shapes, fonts, etc) in various parts of the slide deck.  E.g., in the Names section (slides 8 -16), the ICANN, IANA/PTI objects are all filled with the ‘group color’ but in other sections (except for slide 28), the ICANN/IANA objects have no (or white) fill color.  Although the ‘group color’ is present in objects representing the OCs activities, it is used differently in each one.  Also, the NTIA object in the different sections does not have consistent fill/boarder/font use.  I suspect that most of the inconsistencies came from the individual OCs reviewing their own sections but not the full set of slides.
>> 
>> I do not know if there is time to make fixes to these inconsistencies but I do think that doing so would avoid or eliminate some questions or comments that are just not relevant.  If there’s not enough time, I can live with the inconsistencies. 
> 
> I will include a general comment along the lines above back to the designers and see if they can improve the color usage.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - At some point, the deck should mention that IANA operations need to continue to operate stably, securely and resiliently through all transitiion activities.  Although it was not explicitly mentioned, it was inferred in the March 2014 announcement so perhaps slide 5 could add the following in the left column:
>>>> 
>>>> "The IANA functions must continue to operate securely, stably and resiliently through entire process of transition.”
>>> 
>>> I would not feel comfortable putting this text there because it does not actually appear in the NTIA announcement. I agree that this is important but I don’t think we should attribute it to NTIA in that way. Maybe we could write “Continued security, stability and resilience of the IANA functions” along the bottom of slide 6?
>> 
>> Good point - I’d fine with text on the bottom of slide 6.  How does “On-going secure, stable and resilient IANA functions” with an arrow from left to right under or behind the text?
> 
> Ok
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Secondly, some specific suggestions for individual slides.  I tried to minimize the structural changes to the slides so the suggestions would be straight forward to incorporate - or reject:
>>>> 
>>>> - Slide 3:  At the top of the slide, the Operational Communitees should be shown seperately - perhaps with a surrounding box indicating "IANA Customers".   Suggest using "Names Community" (also change Slide 10), "Numbers Community" (also change Slide 19) and "Protocol Parameters Community" (perhaps change Slide 25).
>>> 
>>> Since this is the very first substantive slide, I’m not sure it makes sense to dive right into that level of detail. Furthermore, this would be hard to depict for protocol parameters since lots of registries can be populated by anyone who wants to register something and those people may not really consider themselves part of the “protocol parameters community.” I’d rather opt for simplicity in slide 3.
>> 
>> I can see the point that simple is better but the problem I see in this case is that it would give the impression that all IANA customers are alike and ask for the same type of service which is clearly not the case - it might also motivate questions like “Why did you ask for three proposals?”.  I do think it would be better to show the separate communities but as a minimum, there should be three “talk boxes” (vice 4), i.e. one in each ‘group color’.
> 
> Ok
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- It's unclear what the three devices at the bottom of the slide represent but I think they are intended to indicate those that use information maintained and provided by IANA.  If this is a correct interpretation, suggest adding text under the devices that says (something like): "Consumbers = Any Internet User"  or something equivalent
>>> 
>>> I think this is something the speaker can explain, i.e., that the identifiers get used in software running on Internet users’ devices.
>> 
>> I found this part of the slide confusing in that it really wasn’t clear why the devices were on the slide.  I agree that the speaker can explain but I expect that the slides will be used by many people beyond the webinars and think that it would be good for them to stand on their own so having text like “Any Internet User” would be useful when the slides show up on some random web/blog site.
> 
> Ok, I’ll ask the designers to try to clarify this.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - Slide 5: see second general comment above.
>>>> 
>>>> - There should be a slide added between the current slide 8 and slide 9 that actually says what the IANA names functions are - the illustrations of current slides 9 and 10 are examples of data but do not show what is involved with maintenance of the DNS Root Zone.  I suggest that text list be derived from the recent ICANN publication "The IANA Functions - An Introduction to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions" from the lists on pages 14, 17 & 18  that is available at:
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-functions-15jun15-en.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> Other potential sources for the list of functions are the Names proposal paragraph P1.I.A. (1003)  or SSAC reports SAC-067 and SAC-068
>>> 
>>> Could you provide exactly the list of bullets you would want to see?
>> 
>> (built from Names proposal Annex A, some consolidation of that list)
>> 
>> Title:  What are the IANA functions related to names?
>> 
>> Root Zone Change Request Management
>> 
>> Root Zone WHOIS Change Request Management
>> 
>> Delegation and Redelegation of TLDs
>> 
>> Root DNSSEC Key Management
>> 
>> Management of Repository of IDN Practices
>> 
>> Other Root Zone Related activities
> 
> Thanks. I think this additional slide will flow more easily between 10 and 11 rather than between 8 and 9, if that is ok with you. At this point in the deck we won’t really have explained what the DNS is, so I’d rather not jump right into Root Zone Change Request Management, etc.
> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - Slide 28 provides an excellent overview of providing an overall illustration of the oversight and accountability aspects of the three operational communities.  However, it does not show any of the regular, on-going interactions of the OCs.  It is, in fact, a very different perspective on the IANA functions than is provided in Slide 3.  This could incorrectly infer that the OCs proposals and transition will result in massive changes from how things work today.  To avoid this incorrect inference, I would suggest that the section needs to either have two slides, one to illustrate how the regular, on-going functions are accomplished by replicating Slide 3 or add text to the current slide that says "this illustrates accountability and oversight" and points to Slide 3 as the illustration of the regular, on-going functions.
>>> 
>>> Per our discussion on the call, would it work for you if we title this slide “Oversight components in the combined proposal”?
>> 
>> Yes, that is a good change to the title.  I would like to see this slide also include the other changes made in paragraph 15 of the v7-JC.doc if that’s feasible.
> 
> Ok, I’ll see if the designers can add the additional sentence to the bottom of the slide.
> 
> 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  Fri Jul 31 16:19:52 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:19:52 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide deck
Message-ID: <ce7ad77f02a845e8ab7744eacc1fc327@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

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


From jen at icgsec.asia  Fri Jul 31 16:27:11 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:27:11 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
	(ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <8E71A798-604C-4D46-AA0E-86D9AC033429@piuha.net>
References: <00f601d0cb85$9dc13c00$d943b400$@icgsec.asia>
	<C24BEC81-B5CA-469B-9F8E-A5B0B87B23E3@piuha.net>
	<01bc01d0cb9d$72266fd0$56734f70$@icgsec.asia>
	<8E71A798-604C-4D46-AA0E-86D9AC033429@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <023401d0cbad$c1a37480$44ea5d80$@icgsec.asia>

Dear Jari,

We have checked and vetted with ICANN (tech and otherwise) that it is ok to
do both from a technical and a policy standpoint.

Correspondingly the webinar announcement has been updated with the EN
conference ID below:
https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-to
-host-webinars-in-conjunction-with-call-for-public-comment/ 

The only caveat we were given was to remind people to mute their speakers if
they are both in the Adobe Connect Room and dialed into the phone bridges.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer


-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] 
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
(ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment


> We have use the same information as we have given out in the ICG calls
previously.

yes, I noticed when I was searching for the dial-in information :-)

>  I will double check - and if providing the English dial in code does not
create technical difficulties I will amend the webinar announcement with
this information.

Great. It would be appreciated, I think. (I don't matter but maybe there are
other people in similar circumstances.) Thanks.

Jari




From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Fri Jul 31 18:18:31 2015
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:18:31 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide
	deck
In-Reply-To: <ce7ad77f02a845e8ab7744eacc1fc327@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <ce7ad77f02a845e8ab7744eacc1fc327@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <99E21174-BA88-4EC7-ACD7-704F5BDC8872@Internet-Matters.com>

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.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 63326 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/d8fac861/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------


On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> 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


From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Fri Jul 31 18:19:58 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:19:58 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Deadlines for feedback on FAQ and slide
	deck (sent from my correct address)
In-Reply-To: <ce7ad77f02a845e8ab7744eacc1fc327@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <ce7ad77f02a845e8ab7744eacc1fc327@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <065B3757-898A-4273-AAA2-B76CDF1E8498@LStAmour.org>

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.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 63326 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/80e3460f/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------


On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> 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


From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Jul 31 21:14:31 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:14:31 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation
Message-ID: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in>

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

From mbashir at mbash.net  Fri Jul 31 21:21:13 2015
From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:21:13 +0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation
In-Reply-To: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in>
References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CALf=_F7TUt6hp6e7iOp=qfPUEoSMDWRqcT3-z6NmwYPrW7QYtw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Alissa for the kind note.

Our first thanks should be to you for your dedication and true hard work
leading ICG to achieve this important milestone.
Special Thanks to Jennifer and the secretariat team for your efforts and
sleepless nights in the last couple of days .

Kind Regards,
Mohamed

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 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
>



-- 
Kind Regards,
Mohamed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150801/6f7dadb4/attachment.html>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Fri Jul 31 21:46:51 2015
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:46:51 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Appreciation
In-Reply-To: <CALf=_F7TUt6hp6e7iOp=qfPUEoSMDWRqcT3-z6NmwYPrW7QYtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <89686402-3156-43F3-BB73-2A6A7592F4AD@cooperw.in>
	<CALf=_F7TUt6hp6e7iOp=qfPUEoSMDWRqcT3-z6NmwYPrW7QYtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-LEb0xvA7GFkOYGP+GNZhSSSLbaWr0fGQYTfGWJi48hew@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Alissa
Thank you very much for your message.
We would like first of all exposers our sincere appreciation and in-depth
gratitude to you for your devotion, hard works, skillful management,
patience and kind attention to all contribution.
Moreover we associate to you  in thanking two Vice Chair, Jenifer and other
ICANN staffs worked before her and even now.
We wish to express our thanks to all ICG Members for their efforts, hard
works, valuable contribution
It is a good team and we enjoyed and continue to enjoy working with them
Kavouss

2015-07-31 23:21 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net>:

> Thank you Alissa for the kind note.
>
> Our first thanks should be to you for your dedication and true hard work
> leading ICG to achieve this important milestone.
> Special Thanks to Jennifer and the secretariat team for your efforts and
> sleepless nights in the last couple of days .
>
> Kind Regards,
> Mohamed
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Mohamed
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150731/445004aa/attachment.html>