From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sat Mar 7 10:25:07 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:25:07 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015 In-Reply-To: <011801d05365$596e2f60$0c4a8e20$@icgsec.asia> References: <017401d04d26$acb6edf0$0624c9d0$@icgsec.asia> <54ED6A8D.3000505@ripe.net> <9856cc36726b40d1a2ca952d85ca3ee0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <011801d05365$596e2f60$0c4a8e20$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <54FAD203.1030604@ripe.net> Personally I consider it appropriate to minute what Paul said about the numbers proposal process in more detail than the current draft. In particular the reference to "consensus among the RIRs" is too narrow because in fact the process produced "consensus of the five regional communities" which is wider than just the RIR organisations and that is essential. Hence I proposed text which according to my recollection and the materials Paul presented is definitely not "putting words into Paul's mouth" as Milton suggests. So I do not agree with the current draft in this regard and propose to use the language I proposed. Daniel On 28.02.15 15:46 , Jennifer Chung wrote: > Hi All, > > Attached is version 3 of the ICG F2F meeting #4 Day 1 minutes (Feb 6). > There has been no further change to version 2 of the Day 2 minutes (Feb 7). > > The minutes are available on the Dropbox links below: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/rg2eo5twnv8o5r2/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day1-6- > february-2015-v3.docx?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/sky0yufony4ypbc/minutes-fourth-f2f-meeting-day2-7- > february-2015-v2.docx?dl=0 > > I have reflected Milton's edits with tracked changes to Daniel's edits. > Please let me know if there are any additional edits needed/if I may accept > the changes as such. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:29 PM > To: Daniel Karrenberg; Jennifer Chung; 'ICG' > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, > 6-7 February 2015 > >> -----Original Message----- >> I do not recall that all ICG members expressed concerns and I also do >> not recall these as particular concerns, rather as questions. My >> recollection supports a wording like: >> >> "Some ICG members raised questions about the jurisdiction governing >> agreements in the IETF proposal. The ICG decided ....." > > Agree that it was some members. To make it even more accurate, we should say > > > "Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current > ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification > regarding the legal status of the MoU." > >> "Wilson stated that the numbers proposal essentially reflects the >> consensus among the RIRs." >> >> I recollect Paul describing it in more detail which I consider >> relevant to minute. My recollection would support a wording like: >> >> "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP >> team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in >> all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from >> these discussions in an open and transparent process." > > I think the earlier statement was more accurate. The latter sounds a bit > promotional and I think you are putting words in Paul's mouth. > >> could be further clarified like this: >> >> "Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs do not >> propose to change the way global Internet number policies are made. >> The RIR response is limited to the implementation of these policies." > > This is much better. More accurate regarding what was actually said. > From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 7 15:42:46 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:42:46 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015 In-Reply-To: <54FAD203.1030604@ripe.net> References: <017401d04d26$acb6edf0$0624c9d0$@icgsec.asia> <54ED6A8D.3000505@ripe.net> <9856cc36726b40d1a2ca952d85ca3ee0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <011801d05365$596e2f60$0c4a8e20$@icgsec.asia> <54FAD203.1030604@ripe.net> Message-ID: I'd be ok with a description that referred to "consensus of the five regional communities as convened by the RIRs" --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net] > Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 5:25 AM > To: Jennifer Chung; Milton L Mueller; 'ICG' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 > February 2015 > > Personally I consider it appropriate to minute what Paul said about the > numbers proposal process in more detail than the current draft. In particular > the reference to "consensus among the RIRs" is too narrow because in fact > the process produced "consensus of the five regional communities" which is > wider than just the RIR organisations and that is essential. Hence I proposed > text which according to my recollection and the materials Paul presented is > definitely not "putting words into Paul's mouth" as Milton suggests. So I do > not agree with the current draft in this regard and propose to use the > language I proposed. > > Daniel From paf at frobbit.se Sun Mar 8 08:47:41 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 09:47:41 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested References: Message-ID: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> All, This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by other ICG members. Patrik Begin forwarded message: > From: Kavouss Arasteh > Date: 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET > To: Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir , Alissa Cooper > Subject: Information requested > > > À Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG > > Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals > Dear Vice chair, > May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the foloowings; > A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. > It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. > The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. > Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. > By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF > mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear > Rergards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Mar 8 14:06:06 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:06:06 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> Dear Patrik Thank you for reply The question addressed to two operational communities represented by Jari and Paul or Alan . If my request was not properly formulated I hereby correct that in raising these questions and seeking clarifications from protocol and numbers operational communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > All, > > This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by other ICG members. > > Patrik > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Kavouss Arasteh >> Date: 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >> To: Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir , Alissa Cooper >> Subject: Information requested >> >> >> À Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >> >> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >> Dear Vice chair, >> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the foloowings; >> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. >> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. >> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. >> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF >> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear >> Rergards > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Mar 8 15:00:10 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 16:00:10 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals Dear Vice chair, May you please ask TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL & Parameters and b) Nummbers to Kindly provide the followings; A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear Rergards 2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Patrik > Thank you for reply > The question addressed to two operational communities represented by Jari > and Paul or Alan . If my request was not properly formulated I hereby > correct that in raising these questions and seeking clarifications from > protocol and numbers operational communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER > Regards > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > All, > > This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by > other ICG members. > > Patrik > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh > *Date:* 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET > *To:* Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir < > mbashir at mbash.net>, Alissa Cooper > *Subject:* *Information requested* > > À *Patrik*, *Mohamed*, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG > Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals > Dear Vice chair, > May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the > foloowings; > A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in > force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. > It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to > better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers > are affected by Transition. > The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a > comparision. > Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness > and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on > accountability before and after transition. > By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal > accountability being carried out by IETF > mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide > similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs > ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five > regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s > are not clear > Rergards > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun Mar 8 15:29:09 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 11:29:09 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> Colleagues Perhaps we should develop a set of questions for all communities to answer. I'm not sure that its appropriate to ask communities to develop comparative documents. Best- Joe On 3/8/2015 11:00 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals > Dear Vice chair, > May you please ask TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL > & Parameters and b) Nummbers to Kindly provide the followings; > A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently > in force and implemented and those which will be required after > Transitiion. > It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members > to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and > Numbers are affected by Transition. > The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a > comparision. > Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the > exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities > on accountability before and after transition. > By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding > internal accountability being carried out by IETF > mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to > provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in > force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized > process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities > of the entire Rir s are not clear > Rergards > > 2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh >: > > Dear Patrik > Thank you for reply > The question addressed to two operational communities represented > by Jari and Paul or Alan . If my request was not properly > formulated I hereby correct that in raising these questions and > seeking clarifications from protocol and numbers operational > communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER > Regards > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström > wrote: > >> All, >> >> This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further >> explanation by other ICG members. >> >> Patrik >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh >> > >>> *Date:* 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >>> *To:* Patrik Fältström >, >>> Mohamed El Bashir >> >, Alissa Cooper >> > >>> *Subject:* *Information requested* >>> >>> À *Patrik*, *Mohamed*, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >>> >>> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >>> Dear Vice chair, >>> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to >>> provide the foloowings; >>> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability >>> currently in force and implemented and those which will be >>> required after Transitiion. >>> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG >>> Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol >>> Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >>> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such >>> a comparision. >>> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the >>> exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two >>> comminities on accountability before and after transition. >>> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding >>> internal accountability being carried out by IETF >>> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested >>> to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability >>> currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more >>> decentralized process of five regional communities and the >>> overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear >>> Rergards >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Mar 8 15:52:30 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 16:52:30 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> Message-ID: Dear Jopseph, May I explain a little bit the objectives of the querry. The terms and condition and status of accountabilty currently applied to Protocole and numbers are not clear. The presentation of these accountability are too complex and it is not clear who is accountable to whom I raised this question to Jari , representing Protocol and he agreed to provide diagram clearly indicating the hierarchy of the implementation and application of the accountavblity as curremntly practiced. The same is valid for numbers Then in regard with the accountabilty after transition sebveral paragraphs spread over various pages deal with7 addressing the post transition accountabilty. For me as an ICG member .it is not clear what are the consequence of transition in regard with accoutabilty before and after transition . For thse reasons I asked for a comparative tabulated form indicating the accountabilty at various level and the corresponding hierarchy before and after transition. Should you have a better way to have such a tabular form which I referred to it as comparative and you seems not to be happy with such term ,please guide me. But currently the suituation is tiotally vague Regards Kavouss 2015-03-08 16:29 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff : > Colleagues > > Perhaps we should develop a set of questions for all communities to > answer. I'm not sure that its appropriate to ask communities to develop > comparative documents. > > Best- > > Joe > > On 3/8/2015 11:00 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals > Dear Vice chair, > May you please ask TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL & Parameters > and b) Nummbers to Kindly provide the followings; > A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in > force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. > It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to > better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers > are affected by Transition. > The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a > comparision. > Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness > and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on > accountability before and after transition. > By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal > accountability being carried out by IETF > mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide > similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs > ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five > regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s > are not clear > Rergards > > 2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > >> Dear Patrik >> Thank you for reply >> The question addressed to two operational communities represented by Jari >> and Paul or Alan . If my request was not properly formulated I hereby >> correct that in raising these questions and seeking clarifications from >> protocol and numbers operational communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> >> All, >> >> This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by >> other ICG members. >> >> Patrik >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh >> *Date:* 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >> *To:* Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir < >> mbashir at mbash.net>, Alissa Cooper >> *Subject:* *Information requested* >> >> À *Patrik*, *Mohamed*, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >> Dear Vice chair, >> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the >> foloowings; >> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in >> force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. >> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to >> better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers >> are affected by Transition. >> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a >> comparision. >> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the >> exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on >> accountability before and after transition. >> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal >> accountability being carried out by IETF >> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to >> provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force >> in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five >> regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s >> are not clear >> Rergards >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at ianacg.orghttp://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Mar 8 16:55:56 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 17:55:56 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> Message-ID: <54FC7F1C.9070303@ripe.net> Kavouss, how the IETF and the five RIRs are currently accountable to their communities is clearly described in the responses that we have. The details are described in a number of normative documents of the communities themselves. These structures have evolved over decades; so they are not freshly designed and simple. On the other hand they are not overly complex either. With a little effort they can be understood by anyone. As with any subject that effort is required for full understanding. The proposed accountability of the ICANN functions operator to the existing structures is fully described in the responses that we have received. These descriptions are very clear to me. So in order to progress I suggest that you ask concrete questions that may help us to understand these structures better. Asking general questions is not going to provide answers that are different from those we already have. Daniel On 8.03.15 16:52 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Jopseph, > May I explain a little bit the objectives of the querry. > The terms and condition and status of accountabilty currently applied to > Protocole and numbers are not clear. > The presentation of these accountability are too complex and it is not > clear who is accountable to whom > I raised this question to Jari , representing Protocol and he agreed to > provide diagram clearly indicating the hierarchy of the implementation > and application of the accountavblity as curremntly practiced. > The same is valid for numbers > Then in regard with the accountabilty after transition sebveral > paragraphs spread over various pages deal with7 addressing the post > transition accountabilty. > For me as an ICG member .it is not clear what are the consequence of > transition in regard with accoutabilty before and after transition . > For thse reasons I asked for a comparative tabulated form indicating the > accountabilty at various level and the corresponding hierarchy before > and after transition. > Should you have a better way to have such a tabular form which > I referred to it as comparative and you seems not to be happy with such > term ,please guide me. > But currently the suituation is tiotally vague > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-03-08 16:29 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff >: > > Colleagues > > Perhaps we should develop a set of questions for all communities to > answer. I'm not sure that its appropriate to ask communities to > develop comparative documents. > > Best- > > Joe > > On 3/8/2015 11:00 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >> Dear Vice chair, >> May you please ask TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL >> & Parameters and b) Nummbers to Kindly provide the followings; >> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability >> currently in force and implemented and those which will be >> required after Transitiion. >> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG >> Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol >> Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a >> comparision. >> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the >> exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two >> comminities on accountability before and after transition. >> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding >> internal accountability being carried out by IETF >> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to >> provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently >> in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more >> decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall >> accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear >> Rergards >> >> 2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh >> >: >> >> Dear Patrik >> Thank you for reply >> The question addressed to two operational communities >> represented by Jari and Paul or Alan . If my request was not >> properly formulated I hereby correct that in raising these >> questions and seeking clarifications from protocol and numbers >> operational communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström > > wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further >>> explanation by other ICG members. >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh >>> > >>>> *Date:* 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >>>> *To:* Patrik Fältström >>> >, Mohamed El Bashir >>>> >, Alissa >>>> Cooper > >>>> *Subject:* *Information requested* >>>> >>>> À *Patrik*, *Mohamed*, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >>>> >>>> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >>>> Dear Vice chair, >>>> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to >>>> provide the foloowings; >>>> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability >>>> currently in force and implemented and those which will be >>>> required after Transitiion. >>>> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling >>>> ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of >>>> Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >>>> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make >>>> such a comparision. >>>> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on >>>> the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these >>>> two comminities on accountability before and after transition. >>>> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram >>>> regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF >>>> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully >>>> requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the >>>> accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular >>>> that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional >>>> communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire >>>> Rir s are not clear >>>> Rergards >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Sun Mar 8 16:58:47 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 17:58:47 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <54FC7FC7.9030905@ripe.net> Colleagues, Both responses we have in hand sufficiently address the accountability chain of the IANA functions operator both present and proposed. Unless we ask specific questions we will get the same answers that are already contained in the responses and other relevant normative documents. Therefore I strongly oppose to ICG asking further general questions about accountability. If members of the ICG have concrete questions about accountability, please raise them here. In a first step we can see if the answers are contained in the documents we already have or if other ICG members can answer the questions sufficiently. Only if and when we have consensus that additional clarification is needed beyond this should we formally ask questions to the communities. This is our agreed procedure and I fully support the chair's treatment of Mr. Arasteh's message. Daniel On 8.03.15 9:47 , Patrik Fältström wrote: > All, > > This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by > other ICG members. > > Patrik > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh > > >> *Date:* 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >> *To:* Patrik Fältström >, >> Mohamed El Bashir >, >> Alissa Cooper > >> *Subject:* *Information requested* >> >> À *Patrik*, *Mohamed*, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >> >> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >> Dear Vice chair, >> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the >> foloowings; >> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently >> in force and implemented and those which will be required after >> Transitiion. >> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members >> to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and >> Numbers are affected by Transition. >> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a >> comparision. >> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the >> exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities >> on accountability before and after transition. >> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding >> internal accountability being carried out by IETF >> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to >> provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in >> force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized >> process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities >> of the entire Rir s are not clear >> Rergards > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Mar 8 18:20:54 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 19:20:54 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <54FC7FC7.9030905@ripe.net> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <54FC7FC7.9030905@ripe.net> Message-ID: Dear Daniel, Thank you very much for the reply, I have just asked that the accountability before and after transition be uin a clear manner be contained i/ presented in a tabular form. I do not believe that there is a need to present or express opposition strong or soft rather to help to understand Position of some colleaguzes and their hurry up attitude are known and no need to resubmit that again Instead of strong opposition we need to provide information I hope soem distiguished people take a more friendly and more flexibble approach. We are a team and should work as a team and should understand each others' problem and views We should have valid reasons for strong objections Can som,ebody tell me who from those various emnities mentioned in reply from protocol and parametr community are dealing with accountability in a hierarchical approach Let us work together Regards Have nice end of Sunday Regards Kavouss 2015-03-08 17:58 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg : > Colleagues, > > Both responses we have in hand sufficiently address the accountability > chain of the IANA functions operator both present and proposed. Unless > we ask specific questions we will get the same answers that are already > contained in the responses and other relevant normative documents. > Therefore I strongly oppose to ICG asking further general questions > about accountability. > > If members of the ICG have concrete questions about accountability, > please raise them here. In a first step we can see if the answers are > contained in the documents we already have or if other ICG members can > answer the questions sufficiently. Only if and when we have consensus > that additional clarification is needed beyond this should we formally > ask questions to the communities. > > This is our agreed procedure and I fully support the chair's treatment > of Mr. Arasteh's message. > > Daniel > > On 8.03.15 9:47 , Patrik Fältström wrote: > > All, > > > > This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by > > other ICG members. > > > > Patrik > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh >> > > >> *Date:* 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET > >> *To:* Patrik Fältström >, > >> Mohamed El Bashir >, > >> Alissa Cooper > > >> *Subject:* *Information requested* > >> > >> À *Patrik*, *Mohamed*, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG > >> > >> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals > >> Dear Vice chair, > >> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the > >> foloowings; > >> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently > >> in force and implemented and those which will be required after > >> Transitiion. > >> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members > >> to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and > >> Numbers are affected by Transition. > >> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a > >> comparision. > >> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the > >> exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities > >> on accountability before and after transition. > >> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding > >> internal accountability being carried out by IETF > >> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to > >> provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in > >> force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized > >> process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities > >> of the entire Rir s are not clear > >> Rergards > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sun Mar 8 18:36:55 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 19:36:55 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Information requested In-Reply-To: References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <54FC7FC7.9030905@ripe.net> Message-ID: Kavouss, all, I am sorry for not explaining in more detail the rationale for my view on this issue. We as ICG can not send questions to any operational community based on requests from individual ICG members. We send questions in the way and form that we do have consensus for in the ICG. This does not imply individuals in the ICG is not to rise his or her voice when the ICG member see issues. But there is a big difference between having a discussion in the ICG that either can be resolved by having other ICG members explain (I have myself been confused, but later understood things when listening to other ICG members), by having representatives / spokes persons from the OCs on ICG explain or clarify or ultimately ICG can send questions to the OC of course. But questions we should send I view should be based on a general need for certain information that we need to be able to do the merge, see overlap, gaps and inconstancies in and between the proposals. I therefore suggest we try to come up with generic things we as ICG should look for in the proposals (or in material referenced from the proposals). Given we have those generic issues, we should look for them, ask where data is, and that question might very well go back to the OC's. This way we will and should also of course be able to gather enough data so that every ICG member do they the questions they are curious about answered. Can this be an acceptable move forward? Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Mar 8 18:49:58 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 19:49:58 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Information requested In-Reply-To: References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <54FC7FC7.9030905@ripe.net> Message-ID: Patrik, 2015-03-08 19:36 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström : > Kavouss, all, > > I am sorry for not explaining in more detail the rationale for my view on > this issue. > > We as ICG can not send questions to any operational community based on > requests from individual ICG members. We send questions in the way and form > that we do have consensus for in the ICG. This does not imply individuals > in the ICG is not to rise his or her voice when the ICG member see issues. > But there is a big difference between having a discussion in the ICG that > either can be resolved by having other ICG members explain (I have myself > been confused, but later understood things when listening to other ICG > members), by having representatives / spokes persons from the OCs on ICG > explain or clarify or ultimately ICG can send questions to the OC of course. > > But questions we should send I view should be based on a general need for > certain information that we need to be able to do the merge, see overlap, > gaps and inconstancies in and between the proposals. > > I therefore suggest we try to come up with generic things we as ICG should > look for in the proposals (or in material referenced from the proposals). > Given we have those generic issues, we should look for them, ask where data > is, and that question might very well go back to the OC's. > > This way we will and should also of course be able to gather enough data > so that every ICG member do they the questions they are curious about > answered. > > Can this be an acceptable move forward? > > Patrik > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Mar 8 18:51:37 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 19:51:37 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Information requested In-Reply-To: References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <54FC7FC7.9030905@ripe.net> Message-ID: Patrik, THANKS , YES pls kindly follow up my questions raised and request mader, We will see what will happen. Regards Kavouss 2015-03-08 19:49 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Patrik, > > > 2015-03-08 19:36 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström : > >> Kavouss, all, >> >> I am sorry for not explaining in more detail the rationale for my view on >> this issue. >> >> We as ICG can not send questions to any operational community based on >> requests from individual ICG members. We send questions in the way and form >> that we do have consensus for in the ICG. This does not imply individuals >> in the ICG is not to rise his or her voice when the ICG member see issues. >> But there is a big difference between having a discussion in the ICG that >> either can be resolved by having other ICG members explain (I have myself >> been confused, but later understood things when listening to other ICG >> members), by having representatives / spokes persons from the OCs on ICG >> explain or clarify or ultimately ICG can send questions to the OC of course. >> >> But questions we should send I view should be based on a general need for >> certain information that we need to be able to do the merge, see overlap, >> gaps and inconstancies in and between the proposals. >> >> I therefore suggest we try to come up with generic things we as ICG >> should look for in the proposals (or in material referenced from the >> proposals). Given we have those generic issues, we should look for them, >> ask where data is, and that question might very well go back to the OC's. >> >> This way we will and should also of course be able to gather enough data >> so that every ICG member do they the questions they are curious about >> answered. >> >> Can this be an acceptable move forward? >> >> Patrik >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Sun Mar 8 23:06:49 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 19:06:49 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> Message-ID: <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> Kavouss & Colleagues, This thread seems to have two fundamental issues: First, how understandable (or non-understandable) are the accountability aspects of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals; Second, there is some requirement for the accountability aspects of the three operational communities to be compared or combined in some way. - With respect to the first, I believe that both the numbers and protocol parameters existing proposals are each sufficiently clear and complete in their accountability descriptions. Although it might be useful to have some graphical illustrations of their respective processes, I do not see that it is within the remit of the ICG to require these illustrations. -- If ICG members (or others) want additional information about what is currently defined in NTIA-ICANN contract, I would suggest reviewing SAC-068 and, if needed, the Contract itself and the referenced agreements. My personal interpretation of what these say is that the numbers operational community and the protocol parameters operational community each have separate, independent agreements outside of the Contract and, further, those agreements are the dominant authority (not the Contract) for how the IANA functions should be carried out for each respective operational community. In short, if these operational communities are satisfied with the accountability mechanisms for their respective functions, it is not within the ICG remit to question or challenge them since the Contract has already put those communities in charge of their respective portions of the IANA functions. (I’d also like to note that there are no similar such provisions for the names community.) With respect to the second issue, I see no need (let alone a requirement) to compare the accountability processes between any of the three OCs. This point is emphasized by the fact the current Contract says accountability between two of these communities is defined by the respective operational communities via agreements that are separate and independent from the Contract. When the ICG receives the names proposal, we (the ICG) will have to make a judgement about the compatibility and interoperability of that proposal with the other two - I do not think that it would not be appropriate or fruitful to try to compare the names accountability processes with either the numbers or protocol parameters proposals since each OC is dealing with separate issues and challenges which will require different approaches to accountability. Russ (M) On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Jopseph, > May I explain a little bit the objectives of the querry. > The terms and condition and status of accountabilty currently applied to Protocole and numbers are not clear. > The presentation of these accountability are too complex and it is not clear who is accountable to whom > I raised this question to Jari , representing Protocol and he agreed to provide diagram clearly indicating the hierarchy of the implementation and application of the accountavblity as curremntly practiced. > The same is valid for numbers > Then in regard with the accountabilty after transition sebveral paragraphs spread over various pages deal with7 addressing the post transition accountabilty. > For me as an ICG member .it is not clear what are the consequence of transition in regard with accoutabilty before and after transition . > For thse reasons I asked for a comparative tabulated form indicating the accountabilty at various level and the corresponding hierarchy before and after transition. > Should you have a better way to have such a tabular form which I referred to it as comparative and you seems not to be happy with such term ,please guide me. > But currently the suituation is tiotally vague > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-03-08 16:29 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff : > Colleagues > > Perhaps we should develop a set of questions for all communities to answer. I'm not sure that its appropriate to ask communities to develop comparative documents. > > Best- > > Joe > > On 3/8/2015 11:00 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >> Dear Vice chair, >> May you please ask TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL & Parameters and b) Nummbers to Kindly provide the followings; >> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. >> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. >> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. >> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF >> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear >> Rergards >> >> 2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >> Dear Patrik >> Thank you for reply >> The question addressed to two operational communities represented by Jari and Paul or Alan . If my request was not properly formulated I hereby correct that in raising these questions and seeking clarifications from protocol and numbers operational communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by other ICG members. >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Date: 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >>>> To: Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir , Alissa Cooper >>>> Subject: Information requested >>>> >>>> >>>> À Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >>>> >>>> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >>>> Dear Vice chair, >>>> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the foloowings; >>>> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. >>>> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >>>> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. >>>> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. >>>> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF >>>> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear >>>> Rergards >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Mon Mar 9 03:44:27 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:44:27 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188252@ACCAN01.accan.local> For what it's worth, I find Russ' points quite compelling. That said, here is a presentation I gave in 2011 that contains a lot of the diagrams that Kavouss is requesting. Jari may wish to use those. They can be found at: http://www.internetsociety.org.au/Events/ Near the top there is a section: 30 September 2011: 'Request for What?? - Participating in Internet Standards Processes', presented by Narelle Clark, Vice-President of ISOC-AU for the ACS Telecommunications SIG. Regards Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy Sent: Monday, 9 March 2015 10:07 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested Kavouss & Colleagues, This thread seems to have two fundamental issues: First, how understandable (or non-understandable) are the accountability aspects of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals; Second, there is some requirement for the accountability aspects of the three operational communities to be compared or combined in some way. - With respect to the first, I believe that both the numbers and protocol parameters existing proposals are each sufficiently clear and complete in their accountability descriptions. Although it might be useful to have some graphical illustrations of their respective processes, I do not see that it is within the remit of the ICG to require these illustrations. -- If ICG members (or others) want additional information about what is currently defined in NTIA-ICANN contract, I would suggest reviewing SAC-068 and, if needed, the Contract itself and the referenced agreements. My personal interpretation of what these say is that the numbers operational community and the protocol parameters operational community each have separate, independent agreements outside of the Contract and, further, those agreements are the dominant authority (not the Contract) for how the IANA functions should be carried out for each respective operational community. In short, if these operational communities are satisfied with the accountability mechanisms for their respective functions, it is not within the ICG remit to question or challenge them since the Contract has already put those communities in charge of their respective portions of the IANA functions. (I'd also like to note that there are no similar such provisions for the names community.) With respect to the second issue, I see no need (let alone a requirement) to compare the accountability processes between any of the three OCs. This point is emphasized by the fact the current Contract says accountability between two of these communities is defined by the respective operational communities via agreements that are separate and independent from the Contract. When the ICG receives the names proposal, we (the ICG) will have to make a judgement about the compatibility and interoperability of that proposal with the other two - I do not think that it would not be appropriate or fruitful to try to compare the names accountability processes with either the numbers or protocol parameters proposals since each OC is dealing with separate issues and challenges which will require different approaches to accountability. Russ (M) On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: Dear Jopseph, May I explain a little bit the objectives of the querry. The terms and condition and status of accountabilty currently applied to Protocole and numbers are not clear. The presentation of these accountability are too complex and it is not clear who is accountable to whom I raised this question to Jari , representing Protocol and he agreed to provide diagram clearly indicating the hierarchy of the implementation and application of the accountavblity as curremntly practiced. The same is valid for numbers Then in regard with the accountabilty after transition sebveral paragraphs spread over various pages deal with7 addressing the post transition accountabilty. For me as an ICG member .it is not clear what are the consequence of transition in regard with accoutabilty before and after transition . For thse reasons I asked for a comparative tabulated form indicating the accountabilty at various level and the corresponding hierarchy before and after transition. Should you have a better way to have such a tabular form which I referred to it as comparative and you seems not to be happy with such term ,please guide me. But currently the suituation is tiotally vague Regards Kavouss 2015-03-08 16:29 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff >: Colleagues Perhaps we should develop a set of questions for all communities to answer. I'm not sure that its appropriate to ask communities to develop comparative documents. Best- Joe On 3/8/2015 11:00 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals Dear Vice chair, May you please ask TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL & Parameters and b) Nummbers to Kindly provide the followings; A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear Rergards 2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh >: Dear Patrik Thank you for reply The question addressed to two operational communities represented by Jari and Paul or Alan . If my request was not properly formulated I hereby correct that in raising these questions and seeking clarifications from protocol and numbers operational communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström > wrote: All, This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by other ICG members. Patrik Begin forwarded message: From: Kavouss Arasteh > Date: 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET To: Patrik Fältström >, Mohamed El Bashir >, Alissa Cooper > Subject: Information requested À Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG [cid:~WRD000.jpg] Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals Dear Vice chair, May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the foloowings; A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear Rergards _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: ~WRD000.jpg URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 07:47:32 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:47:32 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> Message-ID: <516E56CB-8C93-480F-9D2F-75803F9CEA6B@gmail.com> Russ No one intends nor requested to compare accountabilities between three communities . What was simply requested was a tabular form indicating the way accountability is implemented at various level and by various internal entities before and after transition I do not understand sensitivity demonstrated in an aggressive. Manner by those that from the first day of reception of the reports from these communities did not want to DO ANY THING AT ALL. It is propagative right of ICG and its any individual member to ask additional Information for enabling him or her To implement step 2 Why we are deprived to do so???!!! Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Mar 2015, at 00:06, Russ Mundy wrote: > > Kavouss & Colleagues, > > This thread seems to have two fundamental issues: > > First, how understandable (or non-understandable) are the accountability aspects of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals; > > Second, there is some requirement for the accountability aspects of the three operational communities to be compared or combined in some way. > > - With respect to the first, I believe that both the numbers and protocol parameters existing proposals are each sufficiently clear and complete in their accountability descriptions. Although it might be useful to have some graphical illustrations of their respective processes, I do not see that it is within the remit of the ICG to require these illustrations. > > -- If ICG members (or others) want additional information about what is currently defined in NTIA-ICANN contract, I would suggest reviewing SAC-068 and, if needed, the Contract itself and the referenced agreements. My personal interpretation of what these say is that the numbers operational community and the protocol parameters operational community each have separate, independent agreements outside of the Contract and, further, those agreements are the dominant authority (not the Contract) for how the IANA functions should be carried out for each respective operational community. In short, if these operational communities are satisfied with the accountability mechanisms for their respective functions, it is not within the ICG remit to question or challenge them since the Contract has already put those communities in charge of their respective portions of the IANA functions. (I’d also like to note that there are no similar such provisions for the names community.) > > With respect to the second issue, I see no need (let alone a requirement) to compare the accountability processes between any of the three OCs. This point is emphasized by the fact the current Contract says accountability between two of these communities is defined by the respective operational communities via agreements that are separate and independent from the Contract. When the ICG receives the names proposal, we (the ICG) will have to make a judgement about the compatibility and interoperability of that proposal with the other two - I do not think that it would not be appropriate or fruitful to try to compare the names accountability processes with either the numbers or protocol parameters proposals since each OC is dealing with separate issues and challenges which will require different approaches to accountability. > > Russ (M) > > >> On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Dear Jopseph, >> May I explain a little bit the objectives of the querry. >> The terms and condition and status of accountabilty currently applied to Protocole and numbers are not clear. >> The presentation of these accountability are too complex and it is not clear who is accountable to whom >> I raised this question to Jari , representing Protocol and he agreed to provide diagram clearly indicating the hierarchy of the implementation and application of the accountavblity as curremntly practiced. >> The same is valid for numbers >> Then in regard with the accountabilty after transition sebveral paragraphs spread over various pages deal with7 addressing the post transition accountabilty. >> For me as an ICG member .it is not clear what are the consequence of transition in regard with accoutabilty before and after transition . >> For thse reasons I asked for a comparative tabulated form indicating the accountabilty at various level and the corresponding hierarchy before and after transition. >> Should you have a better way to have such a tabular form which I referred to it as comparative and you seems not to be happy with such term ,please guide me. >> But currently the suituation is tiotally vague >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-03-08 16:29 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff : >>> Colleagues >>> >>> Perhaps we should develop a set of questions for all communities to answer. I'm not sure that its appropriate to ask communities to develop comparative documents. >>> >>> Best- >>> >>> Joe >>> >>>> On 3/8/2015 11:00 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >>>> Dear Vice chair, >>>> May you please ask TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL & Parameters and b) Nummbers to Kindly provide the followings; >>>> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. >>>> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >>>> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. >>>> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. >>>> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF >>>> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear >>>> Rergards >>>> >>>> 2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >>>>> Dear Patrik >>>>> Thank you for reply >>>>> The question addressed to two operational communities represented by Jari and Paul or Alan . If my request was not properly formulated I hereby correct that in raising these questions and seeking clarifications from protocol and numbers operational communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by other ICG members. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrik >>>>>> >>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh >>>>>>> Date: 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >>>>>>> To: Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir , Alissa Cooper >>>>>>> Subject: Information requested >>>>>>> >>>>>>> À Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >>>>>>> Dear Vice chair, >>>>>>> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the foloowings; >>>>>>> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently in force and implemented and those which will be required after Transitiion. >>>>>>> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >>>>>>> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a comparision. >>>>>>> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities on accountability before and after transition. >>>>>>> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF >>>>>>> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear >>>>>>> Rergards >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Mar 9 08:43:15 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 09:43:15 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <516E56CB-8C93-480F-9D2F-75803F9CEA6B@gmail.com> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> <516E56CB-8C93-480F-9D2F-75803F9CEA6B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54FD5D23.7090107@ripe.net> Kavouss, Patrik and I just pointed out that before asking formal questions the ICG needs to take a decision to do so. It is not sufficient for one member to raise a question. Informally I have pointed out that the information you seek is already available, maybe not in the form you request but it is there. I have also stated my opinion that we will gain nothing by asking general questions because the information is already there and the answers will be no different than what is already there. If we want to learn more, we have to ask specific questions. Please be assured that I have no aggressive intentions at all. My intention is to remind us of our agreed procedure and to help us to gain the information we need. If there is any deprivation involved here, I do not see it. ;-) Daniel On 9.03.15 8:47 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Russ > No one intends nor requested to compare accountabilities between three > communities . What was simply requested was a tabular form indicating > the way accountability is implemented at various level and by various > internal entities before and after transition > I do not understand sensitivity demonstrated in an aggressive. Manner by > those that from the first day of reception of the reports from these > communities did not want to DO ANY THING AT ALL. > It is propagative right of ICG and its any individual member to ask > additional Information for enabling him or her To implement step 2 > Why we are deprived to do so???!!! > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 9 Mar 2015, at 00:06, Russ Mundy > wrote: > >> Kavouss & Colleagues, >> >> This thread seems to have two fundamental issues: >> >> First, how understandable (or non-understandable) are the >> accountability aspects of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals; >> >> Second, there is some requirement for the accountability aspects of >> the three operational communities to be compared or combined in some way. >> >> - With respect to the first, I believe that both the numbers and >> protocol parameters existing proposals are each sufficiently clear and >> complete in their accountability descriptions. Although it might be >> useful to have some graphical illustrations of their respective >> processes, I do not see that it is within the remit of the ICG to >> require these illustrations. >> >> -- If ICG members (or others) want additional information about what >> is currently defined in NTIA-ICANN contract, I would suggest reviewing >> SAC-068 and, if needed, the Contract itself and the referenced >> agreements. My personal interpretation of what these say is that the >> numbers operational community and the protocol parameters operational >> community each have separate, independent agreements outside of the >> Contract and, further, those agreements are the dominant authority >> (not the Contract) for how the IANA functions should be carried out >> for each respective operational community. In short, if these >> operational communities are satisfied with the accountability >> mechanisms for their respective functions, it is not within the ICG >> remit to question or challenge them since the Contract has already put >> those communities in charge of their respective portions of the IANA >> functions. (I’d also like to note that there are no similar such >> provisions for the names community.) >> >> With respect to the second issue, I see no need (let alone a >> requirement) to compare the accountability processes between any of >> the three OCs. This point is emphasized by the fact the current >> Contract says accountability between two of these communities is >> defined by the respective operational communities via agreements that >> are separate and independent from the Contract. When the ICG receives >> the names proposal, we (the ICG) will have to make a judgement about >> the compatibility and interoperability of that proposal with the other >> two - I do not think that it would not be appropriate or fruitful to >> try to compare the names accountability processes with either the >> numbers or protocol parameters proposals since each OC is dealing with >> separate issues and challenges which will require different approaches >> to accountability. >> >> Russ (M) >> >> >> On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> > wrote: >> >>> Dear Jopseph, >>> May I explain a little bit the objectives of the querry. >>> The terms and condition and status of accountabilty currently applied >>> to Protocole and numbers are not clear. >>> The presentation of these accountability are too complex and it is >>> not clear who is accountable to whom >>> I raised this question to Jari , representing Protocol and he agreed >>> to provide diagram clearly indicating the hierarchy of the >>> implementation and application of the accountavblity as curremntly >>> practiced. >>> The same is valid for numbers >>> Then in regard with the accountabilty after transition sebveral >>> paragraphs spread over various pages deal with7 addressing the post >>> transition accountabilty. >>> For me as an ICG member .it is not clear what are the consequence of >>> transition in regard with accoutabilty before and after transition . >>> For thse reasons I asked for a comparative tabulated form indicating >>> the accountabilty at various level and the corresponding hierarchy >>> before and after transition. >>> Should you have a better way to have such a tabular form which >>> I referred to it as comparative and you seems not to be happy with >>> such term ,please guide me. >>> But currently the suituation is tiotally vague >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-03-08 16:29 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff >>> >: >>> >>> Colleagues >>> >>> Perhaps we should develop a set of questions for all communities >>> to answer. I'm not sure that its appropriate to ask communities >>> to develop comparative documents. >>> >>> Best- >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On 3/8/2015 11:00 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >>>> Dear Vice chair, >>>> May you please ask TWO OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES a) ProtoCOL >>>> & Parameters and b) Nummbers to Kindly provide the followings; >>>> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability >>>> currently in force and implemented and those which will be >>>> required after Transitiion. >>>> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG >>>> Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol >>>> Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >>>> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such >>>> a comparision. >>>> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the >>>> exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two >>>> comminities on accountability before and after transition. >>>> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding >>>> internal accountability being carried out by IETF >>>> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested >>>> to provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability >>>> currently in force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more >>>> decentralized process of five regional communities and the >>>> overall accountabilities of the entire Rir s are not clear >>>> Rergards >>>> >>>> 2015-03-08 15:06 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh >>>> >: >>>> >>>> Dear Patrik >>>> Thank you for reply >>>> The question addressed to two operational communities >>>> represented by Jari and Paul or Alan . If my request was not >>>> properly formulated I hereby correct that in raising these >>>> questions and seeking clarifications from protocol and >>>> numbers operational communities AND NOT to ANY ICG MEMBER >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 8 Mar 2015, at 09:47, Patrik Fältström >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further >>>>> explanation by other ICG members. >>>>> >>>>> Patrik >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh >>>>> > >>>>>> *Date:* 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >>>>>> *To:* Patrik Fältström >>>>> >, Mohamed El Bashir >>>>>> >, Alissa >>>>>> Cooper > >>>>>> *Subject:* *Information requested* >>>>>> >>>>>> À *Patrik*, *Mohamed*, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >>>>>> >>>>>> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >>>>>> Dear Vice chair, >>>>>> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to >>>>>> provide the foloowings; >>>>>> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of >>>>>> accountability currently in force and implemented and >>>>>> those which will be required after Transitiion. >>>>>> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling >>>>>> ICG Members to better undersatnd how the accountability of >>>>>> Protocol Parameter and Numbers are affected by Transition. >>>>>> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make >>>>>> such a comparision. >>>>>> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment >>>>>> on the exacteness and appropriateness of the content of >>>>>> these two comminities on accountability before and after >>>>>> transition. >>>>>> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram >>>>>> regarding internal accountability being carried out by IETF >>>>>> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully >>>>>> requested to provide similar graphic Diagram about the >>>>>> accountability currently in force in RIRs ,in particular >>>>>> that RIRs have a more decentralized process of five >>>>>> regional communities and the overall accountabilities of >>>>>> the entire Rir s are not clear >>>>>> Rergards >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 16:08:57 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:08:57 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <54FC7FC7.9030905@ripe.net> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <54FC7FC7.9030905@ripe.net> Message-ID: <6D26A2EB-97A0-4EB1-8E9E-63948AE7C668@gmail.com> In reply to those that from the beginning Even did not want that we go through the proposals and check them under carious steps. Pls allow us to open bur mouth . Pls allow us to be heard It us nit dictate it us democratic Some people were mire than happy from the beginning and wanted to send the proposals to NTIA without any assessment Fair enough but allow others who express concerns in the last ICG f2 f to express their views . This group is not running friendly some people believe that they gave all right to say yes or no but other do not have similar right Kavouss , Sent from my iPhone > On 8 Mar 2015, at 17:58, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > Colleagues, > > Both responses we have in hand sufficiently address the accountability > chain of the IANA functions operator both present and proposed. Unless > we ask specific questions we will get the same answers that are already > contained in the responses and other relevant normative documents. > Therefore I strongly oppose to ICG asking further general questions > about accountability. > > If members of the ICG have concrete questions about accountability, > please raise them here. In a first step we can see if the answers are > contained in the documents we already have or if other ICG members can > answer the questions sufficiently. Only if and when we have consensus > that additional clarification is needed beyond this should we formally > ask questions to the communities. > > This is our agreed procedure and I fully support the chair's treatment > of Mr. Arasteh's message. > > Daniel > >> On 8.03.15 9:47 , Patrik Fältström wrote: >> All, >> >> This I treat as a request from an ICG member for further explanation by >> other ICG members. >> >> Patrik >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh >> > >>> *Date:* 8 mars 2015 08:30:25 CET >>> *To:* Patrik Fältström >, >>> Mohamed El Bashir >, >>> Alissa Cooper > >>> *Subject:* *Information requested* >>> >>> À *Patrik*, *Mohamed*, Alissa, WUKnoben, ICG >>> >>> Step 2 ,ICG Assessement of Cummunity proposals >>> Dear Vice chair, >>> May you please ask Jari and Alan Barret or Paul Wilson to provide the >>> foloowings; >>> A COMPARATIVE Table indicating the prcess of accountability currently >>> in force and implemented and those which will be required after >>> Transitiion. >>> It would be useful to have that comparative Table enabling ICG Members >>> to better undersatnd how the accountability of Protocol Parameter and >>> Numbers are affected by Transition. >>> The reports of these two communities are difficult to make such a >>> comparision. >>> Without that I will have serious difficulties to comment on the >>> exacteness and appropriateness of the content of these two comminities >>> on accountability before and after transition. >>> By the way, Jari promised to provide a graphic Diagram regarding >>> internal accountability being carried out by IETF >>> mOREOVER, aLAN bARRET / Paul Wilson ,are respectfully requested to >>> provide similar graphic Diagram about the accountability currently in >>> force in RIRs ,in particular that RIRs have a more decentralized >>> process of five regional communities and the overall accountabilities >>> of the entire Rir s are not clear >>> Rergards >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From apb at cequrux.com Mon Mar 9 17:01:41 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:01:41 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #13 - Wed, 11 Mar - 12:00-13:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <001a01d057c9$affe0e50$0ffa2af0$@icgsec.asia> References: <001a01d057c9$affe0e50$0ffa2af0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <20150309170141.GE1496@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Dear ICG members, I will not be able to attend the ICG call on Wednesday 11 March, because I will be travelling at the time of the meeting. Please accept my apologies. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jari.arkko at piuha.net Mon Mar 9 21:38:05 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 23:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] [SPAM] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188252@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188252@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: For what it is worth, I have promised to prepare a graph that shows the different organisations involved in the protocol parameters case, and shows in graphical form also the accountability mechanisms. I promised to do that because I have a feeling that it will be useful in other contexts as well, including various presentations. I’m working on it, but we also have a ton of actual technology work at the IETF that also consumes our time :-) As for the comparisons, and further explanations, I’m always available for questions, and going into details. But I think I would like to avoid re-stating the IETF proposal in new ways, mostly because I probably wouldn’t do full justice to what the community wanted to say after careful deliberations :-) Agreeing with Russ and Daniel as well. Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Mon Mar 9 22:41:13 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:41:13 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] [SPAM] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188252@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC418829A@ACCAN01.accan.local> Jari, Kavouss Were my slides useful to you? Here is a direct link, if the other list was too confusing: http://www.internetsociety.org.au/Events/ietf-overview-ACS-TSA20110930.pdf [From the Australian Internet Society events web page: http://www.internetsociety.org.au/Events/ ] Narelle > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] > Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015 8:38 AM > To: Narelle Clark > Cc: Russ Mundy; Kavouss Arasteh; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [SPAM] [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested > > For what it is worth, I have promised to prepare a graph that shows the > different organisations involved in the protocol parameters case, and shows > in graphical form also the accountability mechanisms. I promised to do that > because I have a feeling that it will be useful in other contexts as well, > including various presentations. I'm working on it, but we also have a ton of > actual technology work at the IETF that also consumes our time :-) > > As for the comparisons, and further explanations, I'm always available for > questions, and going into details. But I think I would like to avoid re-stating > the IETF proposal in new ways, mostly because I probably wouldn't do full > justice to what the community wanted to say after careful deliberations :-) > Agreeing with Russ and Daniel as well. > > Jari From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Tue Mar 10 09:33:46 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:33:46 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] [SPAM] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC418829A@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188252@ACCAN01.accan.local> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC418829A@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: Jari, All, What I requested was a graph that shows the different organisations involved in the protocol parameters case, and shows in graphical form also the accountability mechanisms together with their hierarchcal relations i.e. who reports to whom at the current situation ,before transition takes place And I simply asked to show the same things ( gtaphical form ) for after transition. That was all I did not expect line up opposition lead by some very radical distinguished colleagues who did not and will not want any assessment notr any question .. Today in CCWG I told that group was a lovely group because people are friendly and collaborating .We should learn from them and from their co-chairs who the freidnly atmosphere prevauils Let us work together Kavouss 2015-03-09 23:41 GMT+01:00 Narelle Clark : > Jari, Kavouss > > Were my slides useful to you? > > Here is a direct link, if the other list was too confusing: > http://www.internetsociety.org.au/Events/ietf-overview-ACS-TSA20110930.pdf > > [From the Australian Internet Society events web page: > http://www.internetsociety.org.au/Events/ ] > > > Narelle > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015 8:38 AM > > To: Narelle Clark > > Cc: Russ Mundy; Kavouss Arasteh; internal-cg at ianacg.org > > Subject: Re: [SPAM] [Internal-cg] Fwd: Information requested > > > > For what it is worth, I have promised to prepare a graph that shows the > > different organisations involved in the protocol parameters case, and > shows > > in graphical form also the accountability mechanisms. I promised to do > that > > because I have a feeling that it will be useful in other contexts as > well, > > including various presentations. I'm working on it, but we also have a > ton of > > actual technology work at the IETF that also consumes our time :-) > > > > As for the comparisons, and further explanations, I'm always available > for > > questions, and going into details. But I think I would like to avoid > re-stating > > the IETF proposal in new ways, mostly because I probably wouldn't do full > > justice to what the community wanted to say after careful deliberations > :-) > > Agreeing with Russ and Daniel as well. > > > > Jari > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed Mar 11 07:38:12 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:38:12 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #13 - Wed, 11 Mar - 12:00-13:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <10622A2D-0C28-4146-B0C4-C38145358434@gmail.com> References: <001a01d057c9$affe0e50$0ffa2af0$@icgsec.asia> <10622A2D-0C28-4146-B0C4-C38145358434@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50ED4BA7-9C54-4539-9A94-2003EFB78E45@frobbit.se> FWIW, I might be able to call in, but will not be able to chair the meeting, so the meeting will be chaired by Mohamed. Regards, Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Mar 11 10:29:03 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:29:03 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #13 - Wed, 11 Mar - 12:00-13:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <50ED4BA7-9C54-4539-9A94-2003EFB78E45@frobbit.se> References: <001a01d057c9$affe0e50$0ffa2af0$@icgsec.asia> <10622A2D-0C28-4146-B0C4-C38145358434@gmail.com> <50ED4BA7-9C54-4539-9A94-2003EFB78E45@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <550018EF.4080907@oracle.com> Colleagues I will only be able to join for the first part of the call. On 3/11/2015 3:38 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > FWIW, I might be able to call in, but will not be able to chair the meeting, so the meeting will be chaired by Mohamed. > > Regards, Patrik > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at ianacg.org Thu Mar 12 03:55:56 2015 From: jen at ianacg.org (jen at ianacg.org) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:55:56 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items and attendance list from ICG Call #13, 11 March 2015 Message-ID: <81b174ad07f886843047e41118fecc0f@ianacg.org> Hello All, Please find the action items list and the attendance roll call for Call 13 below: Action items: 1. Approval of the 25 February teleconference call minutes. 2. Arkko to provide further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF’s current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction by the end of this week. 3. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). 4. ICG chairs to check the possibility of using ICG Secretariat to develop the required messaging/infographs as first preference and report back to the ICG. Attendance list: Please let me know if you note any discrepancies. ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) James Bladel (GNSO) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Apologies Alissa Cooper (IETF) Hartmut Glaser (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat From paf at frobbit.se Thu Mar 12 09:58:51 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:58:51 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Action items and attendance list from ICG Call #13, 11 March 2015 In-Reply-To: <81b174ad07f886843047e41118fecc0f@ianacg.org> References: <81b174ad07f886843047e41118fecc0f@ianacg.org> Message-ID: <325CBBCB-EC02-4933-9808-6B3C8352F130@frobbit.se> Thank you very much! Patrik > On 12 mar 2015, at 04:55, jen at ianacg.org wrote: > > Hello All, > > Please find the action items list and the attendance roll call for Call 13 below: > > Action items: > > 1. Approval of the 25 February teleconference call minutes. > 2. Arkko to provide further information (diagram) to the internal-cg mailing list about the IETF’s current overall internal accountability and oversight system related to IANA interaction by the end of this week. > 3. The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operation communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs). > 4. ICG chairs to check the possibility of using ICG Secretariat to develop the required messaging/infographs as first preference and report back to the ICG. > > > Attendance list: Please let me know if you note any discrepancies. > > ICG Members > Alan Barrett (NRO) > Demi Getschko (ISOC) > Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > Jari Arkko (IETF) > James Bladel (GNSO) > Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > Lynn St Amour (IAB) > Manal Ismail (GAC) > Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > Michael Niebel (GAC) > Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > Russ Mundy (SSAC) > Russ Housley (IAB) > Thomas Schneider (GAC) > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > > Liaisons > Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > > Apologies > Alissa Cooper (IETF) > Hartmut Glaser (GAC) > Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > Milton Mueller (GNSO) > Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > Narelle Clark (ISOC) > Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > Paul Wilson (NRO) > Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > ICG Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Mar 12 18:02:22 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:02:22 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] New domain name in use for web, mail etc Message-ID: <9A7C6622-AA4F-467C-A7F0-D113200817E7@frobbit.se> All, As some of you have noticed, the secretariat have started use the new domain name ianacg.org for web and mail (calendar will be added when it is up and running). I am very sorry you did not get any notice before the swap happened, which was something I promised. This implies you who do email filtering have probably mail in some unknown corner of your email mailboxes. You can see information about the change here: The ultimate result is something we all have waited for, so at last we have this!! From now on, please use the new domain name in the email you send. So for example for this list, please use . The old email address will generate bounces (to make it more clear to have a clear cut between the two archives). Regards, Patrik Fältström co-chair ICG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Fri Mar 13 02:37:49 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:37:49 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. In-Reply-To: <54EB3BB1.7020101@oracle.com> References: <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97F9F@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <808953016.3177641.1424650318451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FA7@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <9E101FC9-64DC-441A-90C5-3E8D19EEE27F@gmail.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FC9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <54EB3BB1.7020101@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> Hello Joe, colleagues, I am following up on our open action item on "Steps for handling ICG forum comments" (with thanks to Manal for her excellent work on the document). It seems there is fairly significant agreement on the overall approach, which is not surprising given our discussion in Singapore (note: the minutes from Day 2 of our Singapore meeting cover this topic quite well); and I believe we only need agreement on the point below in order to close. Other relatively minor edits were suggested and can be addressed secondarily. Kavouss, at the same time, we can review the document for the redundancy you commented on. Briefly, there have been two views put forward: 1 - Kavouss (comment taken from the document in dropbox): "It is not appropriate to leave the option to the operational community to receive, forwarded copied of comments or express preference to self monitor the ICG form .It is fundamental that ICG decides on the matter abnd not to leave it to the operational communities to choose receibving I or being forwarded or selfmonitor. ICG is the sole and only instant 7entitty which has the right to decide on the matter." 2 - Joe (comment from email below): "I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions…" As there have been only a handful of ICG members that have commented, it would be helpful to hear from a few more on this point. Best, Lynn On Feb 23, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > Colleagues: > > I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions... > > Joe > > On 2/23/2015 5:16 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: >> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh .. >> So I take this as you'd rather keep your text and not go for what Mary suggested based on Joe's email, right? >> Kind regards >> --Manal >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:09 PM >> To: Manal Ismail >> Cc: Mary Uduma; Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >> >> Dear Manal, >> I sincerely appreciate-your valuable works. >> However, the changes that I made were the minimum that should be taken into account . >> I do not mind about other issues( superfluous text ) . >> Kavouss >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 23 Feb 2015, at 08:13, Manal Ismail wrote: >> >> Many thanks Mary for the constructive suggestion .. >> Happy to add it .. >> The reason I didn't was that I assumed that a reply of any written form (not necessarily a statement) would be considered a commitment .. >> >> Dear Mr. Arasteh .. >> Would this address your concern? >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:12 AM >> To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >> >> Thank you Kavouss and Manal. >> I think what was omitted in Joe's formulations as reproduced by Manal is; >> " In the case of the latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. In either case we will not filter the messages". >> If the provision of a statement from the OC is added to Manal's opening statement, I think it would take care of Kavuoss' comments. >> My comments are as attached. >> Mary Uduma >> >> >> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:34 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: >> >> >> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> >> Dear Mr. Arasteh .. >> >> Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion .. >> Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) .. >> Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I’m flexible with either .. >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM >> To: Manal Ismail >> Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >> >> Dear Manal, >> Thank you very much for the good work that was done. >> I was identified to be part of small group on the matter. >> There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED. >> Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary. >> However, I have not touched that . >> See attachment with revision marks >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail : >> Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation .. >> In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can >> put this into action .. >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net] >> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM >> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >> >> On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote: >>> Dear All .. >>> >>> Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on >>> ICG Forum.. >>> >>> I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore .. >>> >>> I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and >>> was too messy intrack changes .. >>> >>> The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference.. >>> >>> I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the >>> smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of >> time .. >>> >>> Hope to have this settled soon .. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> --Manal >> >> >> >> Manal, >> >> >> thank you very much for driving this along. >> >> "Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft >> based on Singapore Meeting >> 11 February 2015 - V.1" >> >> is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it. >> >> Daniel >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> Thanks Lynn and thanks Joseph .. This is extremely helpful .. >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> -----Original Message----- >> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org >> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff >> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:45 AM >> To: internal-cg at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling >> process complaints] >> By way of clarification and as an input input into this discussion, I >> thought I'd provide my suggestions in writing. >> 1. Provide an automated receipt message for each comment filed. I >> would suggest that the automated receipt include our process related to >> comments so that there is nether false expectation nor misunderstanding. >> 2. We provide each community with the option of receiving forwarded >> messages or allowing them to self monitor the forum. In the case of the >> latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. In >> either case we will not filter the messages. >> 3. On a periodic basis, the Secretariat will create a summary digest of >> comments received by subject (participation, consensus, specific >> element, etc) and we will request that communities to whom the comments >> have been addressed post any summary updates related to their responses >> or how they have dealt with the comments in general or by comment >> subject which they find appropriate. >> 4. Our internal process. We will review comments received and where we >> believe that they require specific response or follow up, ICG will >> create and send specific questions to the relevant community (ies). >> Hope this helps... >> Joe >> On 2/6/2015 6:50 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> Manal, >>> >>> first, GREAT job as usual! >>> >>> And, both you and Daniel have laid this out quite clearly. Thank you >> both. >>> >>> I support many of Daniel's points (just as you did), in fact, all but >> one. I do have concerns about "No acknowledgements. No forwarding" for >> the reasons you state. It does not feel responsive enough. >>> >>> I would support a path that acknowledged and forwarded any comments >> the ICG forum received to the appropriate OC - with a short note re our >> expectations (captured largely in your earlier note, and worded in a way >> that did not trigger our common fears of incorrect impressions). It >> could also reaffirm the role of the OC's and the ICG - this will also be >> instructional for anyone else contemplating a note to the ICG. >>> >>> I also see this more as an Operating Practice than a Procedure per se. >>> >>> If we go this way, I am happy to work with Manal (and others) on text. >>> >>> Best all, >>> >>> Lynn >>> >>> >>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:31 AM, "Manal Ismail" wrote: >>> >>>> Comments, short ones :), inline below .. >>>> Kind Regards >>>> --Manal >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:52 AM >>>> To: Alissa Cooper >>>> Cc: ICG >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: >>>> Handling process complaints] >>>> >>>> On 2.02.15 23:00 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>> Jean-Jacques, >>>>> >>>>> ... And I think it would be great to continue this discussion on the >>>>> mailing list so that it need not occupy much time during the F2F >>>> meeting. ... >>>> >>>> >>>> After the discussion so far, my proposal remains as is: >>>> >>>> avoid any impression that we run a complaints procedure or an appeals >>>> process. >>>> [MI]: Agree .. >>>> >>>> No procedure. >>>> [MI]: Agree .. We don't necessarily need a procedure, per se, but at >>>> least we need common agreement on how to proceed .. >>>> >>>> No acknowledgements. No forwarding. >>>> [MI]: Let me try to go down this path, then what? Do nothing? Then >>>> why did we agree to receive comments directly from the community at >>>> the first place? Do something else? Fair enough, what is it? >>>> >>>> Agree on posing specific questions using our normal process. >>>> [MI]: I fully agree .. Each ICG member can pose questions to the >>>> relevant OC .. and I support Alissa's proposal, to gather all ICG >>>> questions and compile one list (union of all) for each relevant OC .. >>>> ICG questions and public comments are different and not mutually >>>> exclusive processes, as ICG questions may or may not have to with >>>> public comments .. >>>> >>>> It appears to me that we should address this first. It makes no sense >>>> going into details about a specific procedure before we definitely >>>> agree to have one. >>>> [MI]: Definitely .. I fully agree .. >>>> >>>> [MI]: I think, by now, both our views are clear :) .. Let's hear >>>> other colleagues then try to reach an ICG consensus view and a way >>>> forward tomorrow at the meeting .. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Mar 13 14:39:26 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:39:26 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG face-to-face meeting #5 - travel support Message-ID: <00bb01d05d9b$82e03470$88a09d50$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, A reminder that should you wish you request for travel support and have not already done so, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia by 23:59 UTC today, Friday 13 March 2015. Those who have already requested for travel support should have received a confirmation email or communication from the Secretariat- if you have not received this, please let us know as well. Best Regards, Jennifer ICG Secretariat From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:32 AM To: 'ICG' Subject: ICG face-to-face meeting #5 - travel support Dear ICG Members, As communicated by Patrik, your ICG face-to-face meeting #5 will be held in Buenos Aires on Thursday 18 - Friday 19 June 2015. In accordance with ICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. As needed, ICANN may also offer support to ICG members to accommodate their participation in other relevant events taking place during the ICANN 53 week. 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 (17-26 June) 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 to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin at icgsec.asia by Friday 13 March 2015. Thanks, Best regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Mar 14 16:12:54 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:12:54 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. In-Reply-To: <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> References: <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97F9F@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <808953016.3177641.1424650318451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FA7@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <9E101FC9-64DC-441A-90C5-3E8D19EEE27F@gmail.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FC9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <54EB3BB1.7020101@oracle.com> <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <23FDDBB004FF9C4B8B30D6E4C2ECA4CC02640426@ntra-mbx.TRA.GOV.EG> Thanks Lynn for your kind follow-up and the useful summary on where we stand .. I fully agree, we not only need to conclude this open action item but hopefully also in a timely (reasonably timely) fashion .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:38 AM To: joseph alhadeff Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. Hello Joe, colleagues, I am following up on our open action item on "Steps for handling ICG forum comments" (with thanks to Manal for her excellent work on the document). It seems there is fairly significant agreement on the overall approach, which is not surprising given our discussion in Singapore (note: the minutes from Day 2 of our Singapore meeting cover this topic quite well); and I believe we only need agreement on the point below in order to close. Other relatively minor edits were suggested and can be addressed secondarily. Kavouss, at the same time, we can review the document for the redundancy you commented on. Briefly, there have been two views put forward: 1 - Kavouss (comment taken from the document in dropbox): "It is not appropriate to leave the option to the operational community to receive, forwarded copied of comments or express preference to self monitor the ICG form .It is fundamental that ICG decides on the matter abnd not to leave it to the operational communities to choose receibving I or being forwarded or selfmonitor. ICG is the sole and only instant 7entitty which has the right to decide on the matter." 2 - Joe (comment from email below): "I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions..." As there have been only a handful of ICG members that have commented, it would be helpful to hear from a few more on this point. Best, Lynn On Feb 23, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > Colleagues: > > I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions... > > Joe > > On 2/23/2015 5:16 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: >> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh .. >> So I take this as you'd rather keep your text and not go for what Mary suggested based on Joe's email, right? >> Kind regards >> --Manal >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:09 PM >> To: Manal Ismail >> Cc: Mary Uduma; Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >> >> Dear Manal, >> I sincerely appreciate-your valuable works. >> However, the changes that I made were the minimum that should be taken into account . >> I do not mind about other issues( superfluous text ) . >> Kavouss >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 23 Feb 2015, at 08:13, Manal Ismail wrote: >> >> Many thanks Mary for the constructive suggestion .. >> Happy to add it .. >> The reason I didn't was that I assumed that a reply of any written form (not necessarily a statement) would be considered a commitment .. >> >> Dear Mr. Arasteh .. >> Would this address your concern? >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:12 AM >> To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >> >> Thank you Kavouss and Manal. >> I think what was omitted in Joe's formulations as reproduced by Manal >> is; " In the case of the latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. In either case we will not filter the messages". >> If the provision of a statement from the OC is added to Manal's opening statement, I think it would take care of Kavuoss' comments. >> My comments are as attached. >> Mary Uduma >> >> >> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:34 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: >> >> >> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> >> Dear Mr. Arasteh .. >> >> Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion .. >> Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) .. >> Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I'm flexible with either .. >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM >> To: Manal Ismail >> Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >> >> Dear Manal, >> Thank you very much for the good work that was done. >> I was identified to be part of small group on the matter. >> There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED. >> Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary. >> However, I have not touched that . >> See attachment with revision marks >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail : >> Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation .. >> In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs >> can put this into action .. >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net] >> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM >> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >> >> On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote: >>> Dear All .. >>> >>> Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received >>> on ICG Forum.. >>> >>> I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore .. >>> >>> I have createda new document as it describes a different approach >>> and was too messy intrack changes .. >>> >>> The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference.. >>> >>> I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the >>> smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake >>> of >> time .. >>> >>> Hope to have this settled soon .. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> --Manal >> >> >> >> Manal, >> >> >> thank you very much for driving this along. >> >> "Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion >> Draft based on Singapore Meeting >> 11 February 2015 - V.1" >> >> is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it. >> >> Daniel >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> Thanks Lynn and thanks Joseph .. This is extremely helpful .. >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> -----Original Message----- >> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org >> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff >> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:45 AM >> To: internal-cg at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: >> Handling process complaints] By way of clarification and as an input >> input into this discussion, I thought I'd provide my suggestions in >> writing. >> 1. Provide an automated receipt message for each comment filed. I >> would suggest that the automated receipt include our process related >> to comments so that there is nether false expectation nor misunderstanding. >> 2. We provide each community with the option of receiving forwarded >> messages or allowing them to self monitor the forum. In the case of >> the latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. >> In either case we will not filter the messages. >> 3. On a periodic basis, the Secretariat will create a summary digest >> of comments received by subject (participation, consensus, specific >> element, etc) and we will request that communities to whom the >> comments have been addressed post any summary updates related to >> their responses or how they have dealt with the comments in general >> or by comment subject which they find appropriate. >> 4. Our internal process. We will review comments received and where >> we believe that they require specific response or follow up, ICG will >> create and send specific questions to the relevant community (ies). >> Hope this helps... >> Joe >> On 2/6/2015 6:50 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> Manal, >>> >>> first, GREAT job as usual! >>> >>> And, both you and Daniel have laid this out quite clearly. Thank >>> you >> both. >>> >>> I support many of Daniel's points (just as you did), in fact, all >>> but >> one. I do have concerns about "No acknowledgements. No forwarding" for >> the reasons you state. It does not feel responsive enough. >>> >>> I would support a path that acknowledged and forwarded any comments >> the ICG forum received to the appropriate OC - with a short note re >> our expectations (captured largely in your earlier note, and worded >> in a way that did not trigger our common fears of incorrect >> impressions). It could also reaffirm the role of the OC's and the >> ICG - this will also be instructional for anyone else contemplating a note to the ICG. >>> >>> I also see this more as an Operating Practice than a Procedure per se. >>> >>> If we go this way, I am happy to work with Manal (and others) on text. >>> >>> Best all, >>> >>> Lynn >>> >>> >>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:31 AM, "Manal Ismail" wrote: >>> >>>> Comments, short ones :), inline below .. >>>> Kind Regards >>>> --Manal >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel >>>> Karrenberg >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:52 AM >>>> To: Alissa Cooper >>>> Cc: ICG >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: >>>> Handling process complaints] >>>> >>>> On 2.02.15 23:00 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>> Jean-Jacques, >>>>> >>>>> ... And I think it would be great to continue this discussion on >>>>> the mailing list so that it need not occupy much time during the >>>>> F2F >>>> meeting. ... >>>> >>>> >>>> After the discussion so far, my proposal remains as is: >>>> >>>> avoid any impression that we run a complaints procedure or an >>>> appeals process. >>>> [MI]: Agree .. >>>> >>>> No procedure. >>>> [MI]: Agree .. We don't necessarily need a procedure, per se, but >>>> at least we need common agreement on how to proceed .. >>>> >>>> No acknowledgements. No forwarding. >>>> [MI]: Let me try to go down this path, then what? Do nothing? Then >>>> why did we agree to receive comments directly from the community at >>>> the first place? Do something else? Fair enough, what is it? >>>> >>>> Agree on posing specific questions using our normal process. >>>> [MI]: I fully agree .. Each ICG member can pose questions to the >>>> relevant OC .. and I support Alissa's proposal, to gather all ICG >>>> questions and compile one list (union of all) for each relevant OC .. >>>> ICG questions and public comments are different and not mutually >>>> exclusive processes, as ICG questions may or may not have to with >>>> public comments .. >>>> >>>> It appears to me that we should address this first. It makes no >>>> sense going into details about a specific procedure before we >>>> definitely agree to have one. >>>> [MI]: Definitely .. I fully agree .. >>>> >>>> [MI]: I think, by now, both our views are clear :) .. Let's hear >>>> other colleagues then try to reach an ICG consensus view and a way >>>> forward tomorrow at the meeting .. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Mar 16 10:44:35 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:44:35 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. In-Reply-To: <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> References: <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97F9F@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <808953016.3177641.1424650318451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FA7@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <9E101FC9-64DC-441A-90C5-3E8D19EEE27F@gmail.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FC9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <54EB3BB1.7020101@oracle.com> <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <5506B413.3010803@ripe.net> On 13.03.15 3:37 , Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Hello Joe, colleagues, > > I am following up on our open action item on "Steps for handling ICG forum comments" (with thanks to Manal for her excellent work on the document). It seems there is fairly significant agreement on the overall approach, which is not surprising given our discussion in Singapore (note: the minutes from Day 2 of our Singapore meeting cover this topic quite well); and I believe we only need agreement on the point below in order to close. Other relatively minor edits were suggested and can be addressed secondarily. Kavouss, at the same time, we can review the document for the redundancy you commented on. > > Briefly, there have been two views put forward: > > 1 - Kavouss (comment taken from the document in dropbox): "It is not appropriate to leave the option to the operational community to receive, forwarded copied of comments or express preference to self monitor the ICG form .It is fundamental that ICG decides on the matter abnd not to leave it to the operational communities to choose receibving I or being forwarded or selfmonitor. ICG is the sole and only instant 7entitty which has the right to decide on the matter." > > 2 - Joe (comment from email below): "I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions…" > > As there have been only a handful of ICG members that have commented, it would be helpful to hear from a few more on this point. > > Best, > > Lynn > > 2 is what I recall and fully agree with. Daniel From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Mar 16 17:36:50 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:36:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 11 March 2015 teleconference Message-ID: <00a601d0600f$ca0deab0$5e29c010$@icgsec.asia> Hello All, The minutes of the 11 March teleconference (ICG Call #13) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/mssedhs Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31739 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paf at frobbit.se Mon Mar 16 18:48:09 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:48:09 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle for next telephone conferences Message-ID: <62098078-223D-4343-8A2F-8FB76C49B2D9@frobbit.se> All, Scheduling the April calls as follows: - Wednesday, 8 April 2015 – around 04:00 UTC - Wednesday, 22 April 2015 – around 12:00 UTC Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/h8448i2nsyse8q27 Please note that the above times do not clash with the currently contemplated meeting times for CCWG or CWG Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Mar 17 03:26:20 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:26:20 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 11 March 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <1236034066.841504.1426540879854.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <00a601d0600f$ca0deab0$5e29c010$@icgsec.asia> <1236034066.841504.1426540879854.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005601d06062$246eb140$6d4c13c0$@icgsec.asia> Hi Mary, Thank you for your edits. I have uploaded the version with your edits onto the Dropbox here: http://tinyurl.com/lug8vnl Based upon your edits (I have accepted your edits, and added changes in redline), I have updated the minutes to v2, attached and available on Dropbox here: http://tinyurl.com/mca7g6d Please let me know if v2 of the minutes accurately reflects the changes you have requested. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:21 PM To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 11 March 2015 teleconference Thank you Jennifer for the minutes. I have few edits on my briefing as attached. Unfortunately, my audio output was breaking up during the call. If members need further clarifications, I will provide same. Mary Uduma On Monday, March 16, 2015 6:37 PM, Jennifer Chung > wrote: Hello All, The minutes of the 11 March teleconference (ICG Call #13) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/mssedhs Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33817 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Mon Mar 16 21:21:19 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 11 March 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <00a601d0600f$ca0deab0$5e29c010$@icgsec.asia> References: <00a601d0600f$ca0deab0$5e29c010$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <1236034066.841504.1426540879854.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you Jennifer for the minutes. I have few edits on my briefing as attached. Unfortunately, my audio output was breaking up during the call.If members need further clarifications, I will provide same. Mary Uduma On Monday, March 16, 2015 6:37 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: Hello All,  The minutes of the 11 March teleconference (ICG Call #13) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/mssedhs  Best Regards,  Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-11-march-2015-draft.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33440 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Tue Mar 17 09:19:10 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:19:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. In-Reply-To: <5506B413.3010803@ripe.net> Message-ID: <19257243.341.1426583946448.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello All, although I was not present in Singapore for the face-to-face meeting, it seems to me that option 2 described by Lynn is closer to what we are aiming at. And again, many thanks Manal for effectively carrying this work forward. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 16 Mars 2015 11:44:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. On 13.03.15 3:37 , Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Hello Joe, colleagues, > > I am following up on our open action item on "Steps for handling ICG forum comments" (with thanks to Manal for her excellent work on the document). It seems there is fairly significant agreement on the overall approach, which is not surprising given our discussion in Singapore (note: the minutes from Day 2 of our Singapore meeting cover this topic quite well); and I believe we only need agreement on the point below in order to close. Other relatively minor edits were suggested and can be addressed secondarily. Kavouss, at the same time, we can review the document for the redundancy you commented on. > > Briefly, there have been two views put forward: > > 1 - Kavouss (comment taken from the document in dropbox): "It is not appropriate to leave the option to the operational community to receive, forwarded copied of comments or express preference to self monitor the ICG form .It is fundamental that ICG decides on the matter abnd not to leave it to the operational communities to choose receibving I or being forwarded or selfmonitor. ICG is the sole and only instant 7entitty which has the right to decide on the matter." > > 2 - Joe (comment from email below): "I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions…" > > As there have been only a handful of ICG members that have commented, it would be helpful to hear from a few more on this point. > > Best, > > Lynn > > 2 is what I recall and fully agree with. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Tue Mar 17 13:45:24 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:45:24 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. In-Reply-To: <19257243.341.1426583946448.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <5506B413.3010803@ripe.net> <19257243.341.1426583946448.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: Dear All, Mine and Joe,s are complement to each other. May I leave it to Joe to kindly import essential elements from mine ( not optional action but mandated action 0 and Joe,s wording Regards Kavouss 2015-03-17 10:19 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > Hello All, > although I was not present in Singapore for the face-to-face meeting, it > seems to me that option 2 described by Lynn is closer to what we are aiming > at. > And again, many thanks Manal for effectively carrying this work forward. > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Daniel Karrenberg" > À: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Lundi 16 Mars 2015 11:44:35 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. > > On 13.03.15 3:37 , Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Hello Joe, colleagues, > > > > I am following up on our open action item on "Steps for handling ICG > forum comments" (with thanks to Manal for her excellent work on the > document). It seems there is fairly significant agreement on the overall > approach, which is not surprising given our discussion in Singapore (note: > the minutes from Day 2 of our Singapore meeting cover this topic quite > well); and I believe we only need agreement on the point below in order to > close. Other relatively minor edits were suggested and can be addressed > secondarily. Kavouss, at the same time, we can review the document for > the redundancy you commented on. > > > > Briefly, there have been two views put forward: > > > > 1 - Kavouss (comment taken from the document in dropbox): "It is not > appropriate to leave the option to the operational community to receive, > forwarded copied of comments or express preference to self monitor the ICG > form .It is fundamental that ICG decides on the matter abnd not to leave it > to the operational communities to choose receibving I or being forwarded > or selfmonitor. ICG is the sole and only instant 7entitty which has the > right to decide on the matter." > > > > 2 - Joe (comment from email below): "I believe that the consensus that > emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to > monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to > confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide > the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond > our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own > questions…" > > > > As there have been only a handful of ICG members that have commented, it > would be helpful to hear from a few more on this point. > > > > Best, > > > > Lynn > > > > > > > 2 is what I recall and fully agree with. > > Daniel > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Tue Mar 17 21:08:14 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:08:14 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. In-Reply-To: <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> References: <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97F9F@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <808953016.3177641.1424650318451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FA7@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <9E101FC9-64DC-441A-90C5-3E8D19EEE27F@gmail.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FC9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <54EB3BB1.7020101@oracle.com> <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <58108109-70E8-4F5E-9E25-405371E8B352@LStAmour.org> Resending.. Manal and I would really like to hear from more ICG members in order to close this. Best, Lynn On Mar 12, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Hello Joe, colleagues, > > I am following up on our open action item on "Steps for handling ICG forum comments" (with thanks to Manal for her excellent work on the document). It seems there is fairly significant agreement on the overall approach, which is not surprising given our discussion in Singapore (note: the minutes from Day 2 of our Singapore meeting cover this topic quite well); and I believe we only need agreement on the point below in order to close. Other relatively minor edits were suggested and can be addressed secondarily. Kavouss, at the same time, we can review the document for the redundancy you commented on. > > Briefly, there have been two views put forward: > > 1 - Kavouss (comment taken from the document in dropbox): "It is not appropriate to leave the option to the operational community to receive, forwarded copied of comments or express preference to self monitor the ICG form .It is fundamental that ICG decides on the matter abnd not to leave it to the operational communities to choose receibving I or being forwarded or selfmonitor. ICG is the sole and only instant 7entitty which has the right to decide on the matter." > > 2 - Joe (comment from email below): "I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions…" > > As there have been only a handful of ICG members that have commented, it would be helpful to hear from a few more on this point. > > Best, > > Lynn > > > > On Feb 23, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Joseph Alhadeff wrote: > >> Colleagues: >> >> I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions... >> >> Joe >> >> On 2/23/2015 5:16 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: >>> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh .. >>> So I take this as you'd rather keep your text and not go for what Mary suggested based on Joe's email, right? >>> Kind regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:09 PM >>> To: Manal Ismail >>> Cc: Mary Uduma; Coordination Group >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >>> >>> Dear Manal, >>> I sincerely appreciate-your valuable works. >>> However, the changes that I made were the minimum that should be taken into account . >>> I do not mind about other issues( superfluous text ) . >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 23 Feb 2015, at 08:13, Manal Ismail wrote: >>> >>> Many thanks Mary for the constructive suggestion .. >>> Happy to add it .. >>> The reason I didn't was that I assumed that a reply of any written form (not necessarily a statement) would be considered a commitment .. >>> >>> Dear Mr. Arasteh .. >>> Would this address your concern? >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com] >>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:12 AM >>> To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh >>> Cc: Coordination Group >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >>> >>> Thank you Kavouss and Manal. >>> I think what was omitted in Joe's formulations as reproduced by Manal is; >>> " In the case of the latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. In either case we will not filter the messages". >>> If the provision of a statement from the OC is added to Manal's opening statement, I think it would take care of Kavuoss' comments. >>> My comments are as attached. >>> Mary Uduma >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:34 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>> >>> Dear Mr. Arasteh .. >>> >>> Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion .. >>> Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) .. >>> Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I’m flexible with either .. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM >>> To: Manal Ismail >>> Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >>> >>> Dear Manal, >>> Thank you very much for the good work that was done. >>> I was identified to be part of small group on the matter. >>> There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED. >>> Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary. >>> However, I have not touched that . >>> See attachment with revision marks >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail : >>> Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation .. >>> In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can >>> put this into action .. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net] >>> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM >>> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. >>> >>> On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote: >>>> Dear All .. >>>> >>>> Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on >>>> ICG Forum.. >>>> >>>> I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore .. >>>> >>>> I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and >>>> was too messy intrack changes .. >>>> >>>> The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference.. >>>> >>>> I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the >>>> smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of >>> time .. >>>> >>>> Hope to have this settled soon .. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> >>>> --Manal >>> >>> >>> >>> Manal, >>> >>> >>> thank you very much for driving this along. >>> >>> "Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft >>> based on Singapore Meeting >>> 11 February 2015 - V.1" >>> >>> is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it. >>> >>> Daniel >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> >>> Thanks Lynn and thanks Joseph .. This is extremely helpful .. >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org >>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff >>> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:45 AM >>> To: internal-cg at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling >>> process complaints] >>> By way of clarification and as an input input into this discussion, I >>> thought I'd provide my suggestions in writing. >>> 1. Provide an automated receipt message for each comment filed. I >>> would suggest that the automated receipt include our process related to >>> comments so that there is nether false expectation nor misunderstanding. >>> 2. We provide each community with the option of receiving forwarded >>> messages or allowing them to self monitor the forum. In the case of the >>> latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. In >>> either case we will not filter the messages. >>> 3. On a periodic basis, the Secretariat will create a summary digest of >>> comments received by subject (participation, consensus, specific >>> element, etc) and we will request that communities to whom the comments >>> have been addressed post any summary updates related to their responses >>> or how they have dealt with the comments in general or by comment >>> subject which they find appropriate. >>> 4. Our internal process. We will review comments received and where we >>> believe that they require specific response or follow up, ICG will >>> create and send specific questions to the relevant community (ies). >>> Hope this helps... >>> Joe >>> On 2/6/2015 6:50 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>>> Manal, >>>> >>>> first, GREAT job as usual! >>>> >>>> And, both you and Daniel have laid this out quite clearly. Thank you >>> both. >>>> >>>> I support many of Daniel's points (just as you did), in fact, all but >>> one. I do have concerns about "No acknowledgements. No forwarding" for >>> the reasons you state. It does not feel responsive enough. >>>> >>>> I would support a path that acknowledged and forwarded any comments >>> the ICG forum received to the appropriate OC - with a short note re our >>> expectations (captured largely in your earlier note, and worded in a way >>> that did not trigger our common fears of incorrect impressions). It >>> could also reaffirm the role of the OC's and the ICG - this will also be >>> instructional for anyone else contemplating a note to the ICG. >>>> >>>> I also see this more as an Operating Practice than a Procedure per se. >>>> >>>> If we go this way, I am happy to work with Manal (and others) on text. >>>> >>>> Best all, >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:31 AM, "Manal Ismail" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Comments, short ones :), inline below .. >>>>> Kind Regards >>>>> --Manal >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org >>>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:52 AM >>>>> To: Alissa Cooper >>>>> Cc: ICG >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: >>>>> Handling process complaints] >>>>> >>>>> On 2.02.15 23:00 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>>>> Jean-Jacques, >>>>>> >>>>>> ... And I think it would be great to continue this discussion on the >>>>>> mailing list so that it need not occupy much time during the F2F >>>>> meeting. ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> After the discussion so far, my proposal remains as is: >>>>> >>>>> avoid any impression that we run a complaints procedure or an appeals >>>>> process. >>>>> [MI]: Agree .. >>>>> >>>>> No procedure. >>>>> [MI]: Agree .. We don't necessarily need a procedure, per se, but at >>>>> least we need common agreement on how to proceed .. >>>>> >>>>> No acknowledgements. No forwarding. >>>>> [MI]: Let me try to go down this path, then what? Do nothing? Then >>>>> why did we agree to receive comments directly from the community at >>>>> the first place? Do something else? Fair enough, what is it? >>>>> >>>>> Agree on posing specific questions using our normal process. >>>>> [MI]: I fully agree .. Each ICG member can pose questions to the >>>>> relevant OC .. and I support Alissa's proposal, to gather all ICG >>>>> questions and compile one list (union of all) for each relevant OC .. >>>>> ICG questions and public comments are different and not mutually >>>>> exclusive processes, as ICG questions may or may not have to with >>>>> public comments .. >>>>> >>>>> It appears to me that we should address this first. It makes no sense >>>>> going into details about a specific procedure before we definitely >>>>> agree to have one. >>>>> [MI]: Definitely .. I fully agree .. >>>>> >>>>> [MI]: I think, by now, both our views are clear :) .. Let's hear >>>>> other colleagues then try to reach an ICG consensus view and a way >>>>> forward tomorrow at the meeting .. >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> >>> Internal-cg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Mar 19 02:05:44 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:05:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: Vol. 2: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions Message-ID: <009101d061e9$39bcc090$ad3641b0$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, ICANN is compiling bi-weekly updates on the community discussions and progress of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe.‬‬ You may find the full update at the link below: Vol. 2: Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions- https://www.icann.org/news/blog/vol-2-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions Best Regards, Jennifer From apb at cequrux.com Thu Mar 19 08:00:33 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:00:33 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to questions asked of CRISP Team Message-ID: <20150319080033.GL27102@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Deear ICG members, I refer to the questions that Paul Wilson forwarded from the ICG to the CRISP Team on 24 Feb 2015. The CRISP Team has the following response: > II.B.2. If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, > identify which ones are affected and explain in what way. > > Response in the numbers proposal: >> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA >> Numbering Services, and therefore its contractual relationship with >> the IANA Functions Operator, would have no significant impact on the >> continuity of IANA Numbering Services currently provided by ICANN. >> However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the >> current system >> >> ICANN has historically provided IANA Numbering Services via the IANA >> Number Registries under the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions >> contract, and therefore IANA Numbering Services for the RIRs are >> currently subject to change in accordance with that agreement. > > Question1: > What specifically is the "element of oversight" which is referred to > in this section, and how is it to be replaced under this proposal? The element of oversight that the NTIA provides for the IANA Numbering Services is the ability to change the contract with ICANN. This is stated in the very next paragraph of the CRISP proposal (the last paragraph of section III.B.2), immediately after the sentence that says "it would remove a significant element of oversight": ICANN has historically provided IANA Numbering Services via the IANA Number Registries under the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions contract, and therefore IANA Numbering Services for the RIRs are currently subject to change in accordance with that agreement. Section II.B.3.i expands on this: ICANN, as the current IANA Numbering Services Operator, is obligated by the NTIA agreement to manage the IANA Number Registries according to policies developed by the Internet Number Community. Although the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms are public in nature, the NTIA has an oversight role in the provision of the services through its contract with ICANN. The ultimate consequence of failing to meet the performance standards or reporting requirements is understood to be a decision by the contracting party (the NTIA) to terminate or not renew the IANA Functions Agreement with the current contractor (ICANN). The proposed new contract between the NRO/RIRs and ICANN replaces the existing IANA Functions contract on the IANA Numbering Services. It provides the same type of oversight, that is, the possibility of delegating IANA Numbering Services to an entity other than ICANN and provisions on how the IANA function should be performed. > III.A. The elements of this proposal > Response in the numbers proposal: >> 1. ICANN to continue as the IANA Functions Operator for the IANA >> Numbering Services, hereinafter referred to as the IANA Numbering >> Services Operator, via a contract with the RIRs; >> 2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with >> the community; >> 3. Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services >> Operator; and >> 4. Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from >> each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA functions >> operator's performance and meeting of identified service levels. >> > Question2: > How will the Review Committee be established, how will it operate, and > how is it related to any other ICANN-related review committees? 2a: How will the Review Committee be established? The Review Committee will be established by the RIRs, there will be equal representation from each RIR region, and members will be selected in an open, transparent, and bottom-up manner appropriate for each RIR region. This is explained in section III.A.4 of the CRISP proposal: The RIRs shall establish a Review Committee [...]. The Review Committee should be a team composed of suitably qualified Internet Number Community representatives from each RIR region. The selection of the Review Committee members should be conducted in an open, transparent, and bottom-up manner appropriate for each RIR region. There should be equal representation from each RIR region within the Review Committee. Based on these requirements, RIRs will initiate the process of setting up the Review Committee. The RIR community already has precedents and well-established processes in selecting community representatives from each RIR region, such as selecting representatives for the ASO AC, and the CRISP Team. 2b: How will the Review Committee operate? Based on the SLA, the Review Committee will review the level of service provided by the IANA Numbering Services Operator (ICANN at the time of the transition), and will report any concerns to the NRO EC. The Review Committee will not do anything else. The Review Committee's activities will be conducted in an open and transparent manner. This is explained in section III.A.4 of the CRISP proposal: The RIRs shall establish a Review Committee that will advise and assist the NRO EC in its periodic review. The Review Committee will, as needed, undertake a review of the level of service received from the IANA Numbering Services Operator and report to the NRO EC any concerns regarding the performance of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, including especially any observed failure or near-failure by the IANA Numbering Services Operator to meet its obligations under the proposed agreement. Any such Review Committee will advise the NRO EC in its capacity solely to oversee the performance of the IANA Numbering Services, and the Review Committee's advice and comment will be limited to the processes followed in the IANA Numbering Services Operator's performance under the proposed agreement. Activities of the Review Committee shall be conducted in an open and transparent manner. Reports from the Review Committee shall be published. 2c: How is the Review Committee related to any other ICANN-related review committees? It is not related to any other committees. The Review Committee's role is to provide advice to RIRs in conducting review on the service level of IANA Numbering Services. Its scope is limited to the number resources component of the IANA function which has no overlaps with other ICANN-related review committees. > III.A. The elements of this proposal > Question3: > Given the stated need for "communication and coordination" between the > communities, how is this to be achieved under this proposal? This question seems to refer to the last paragraph of section III.A of the CRISP proposal: This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) will have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator related to maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process. In the event that all three communities (numbers, protocol parameters, and names) choose the same IANA operator, then we expect that minimal coordination will be required. In the event that different IANA operators are chosen by different communities, then coordination will be required to ensure coherency of the IANA functions. The numbers proposal merely records that coordination may be necessary for such future possibility. If such event occurs in the future which require coordination, there is an existing mechanism which enables such coordination, as SOs and ACs representing the three operational communities. We could make use of such existing mechanism. Regards, Alan Barrett vice chair of the CRISP Team From paf at frobbit.se Thu Mar 19 08:09:39 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:09:39 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Teleconf March 25 CANCELLED Message-ID: Hi, Due to the high number of meetings on or adjacent to Wednesday March 25 (CWG Names, ITU, IETF etc) we chairs have decided to CANCEL the meeting. We encourage continued discussion on the questions and clarifications ICG members suggests in general and specifically on the material we have on the table today. Patrik Fältström ICG Co-Chair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From apb at cequrux.com Thu Mar 19 08:17:49 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:17:49 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] [SPAM] Fwd: Information requested In-Reply-To: References: <5C767372-3376-45CC-AF4B-368B985A871A@frobbit.se> <77AC2FA6-7050-4A73-9752-3F9CAD9BCDA8@gmail.com> <54FC6AC5.4000008@oracle.com> <8DA62644-E589-4304-A457-8E71240267AE@tislabs.com> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188252@ACCAN01.accan.local> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC418829A@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <20150319081749.GM27102@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >What I requested was a graph that shows >the different organisations involved in the protocol parameters case, >and shows in graphical form also the accountability mechanisms together >with their hierarchcal relations i.e. who reports to whom at the current >situation ,before transition takes place >And I simply asked to show the same things ( gtaphical form ) for after >transition. I have asked the CRISP Team to prepare such a graph. --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at cequrux.com Thu Mar 19 08:52:51 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:52:51 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. In-Reply-To: <58108109-70E8-4F5E-9E25-405371E8B352@LStAmour.org> References: <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97F9F@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <808953016.3177641.1424650318451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FA7@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <9E101FC9-64DC-441A-90C5-3E8D19EEE27F@gmail.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FC9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <54EB3BB1.7020101@oracle.com> <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> <58108109-70E8-4F5E-9E25-405371E8B352@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <20150319085251.GO27102@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Manal and I would really like to hear from more ICG members in > order to close this. >> Briefly, there have been two views put forward: >> >> 1 - Kavouss (comment taken from the document in dropbox): "It >> is not appropriate to leave the option to the operational >> community to receive, forwarded copied of comments or express >> preference to self monitor the ICG form .It is fundamental >> that ICG decides on the matter abnd not to leave it to the >> operational communities to choose receibving I or being >> forwarded or selfmonitor. ICG is the sole and only instant >> 7entitty which has the right to decide on the matter." >> >> 2 - Joe (comment from email below): "I believe that the >> consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the >> option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but >> in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I >> think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of >> comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond >> our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate >> our own questions…" My understanding of the consensus in the room in Singapore was closer to option 2 above: * The ICG should not decide the "value" of comments; * The ICG should ensure that all comments are forwarded to the relevant communities; * Forwarding of comments to the communities may be done via a "push" process, in which the ICG secretariat sends a message to the community whenever a comment is received, or via a "pull" process in which the community monitors the ICG forum. * If a community wished to use a "pull" process, then that community must send a written request to the ICG. --apb (Alan Barrett) From paf at frobbit.se Thu Mar 19 09:52:33 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:52:33 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Event canceled: ICG Call #14 - Wed, 25 Mar - 20:00-21:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <2422AA3A-DF38-4AD3-AB73-83A01B8C0A74@t-online.de> References: <2422AA3A-DF38-4AD3-AB73-83A01B8C0A74@t-online.de> Message-ID: <1E66542F-235C-486C-9E90-481B3A4B136E@frobbit.se> Hi, The rationale is as mentioned in the email from me the low expected number of participants due to colissions with other meetings. Regards, Patrik Fältström > On 19 mar 2015, at 10:31, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote: > > Can we get a rationale for canceling the call? > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > Sent from my personal phone > >> Am 19.03.2015 um 10:24 schrieb Yannis Li : >> >> Yannis Li has canceled the event: ICG Call #14 - Wed, 25 Mar - 20:00-21:00 UTC. To handle this cancellation, click the link below. >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Mar 19 13:10:34 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:10:34 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. In-Reply-To: <20150319085251.GO27102@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97F9F@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <808953016.3177641.1424650318451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FA7@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <9E101FC9-64DC-441A-90C5-3E8D19EEE27F@gmail.com> <71B31814FD4C444382DE4FFECF2B19EFD97FC9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> <54EB3BB1.7020101@oracle.com> <1DBABAF1-222A-4369-B660-AAF866A916DE@LStAmour.org> <58108109-70E8-4F5E-9E25-405371E8B352@LStAmour.org> <20150319085251.GO27102@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <8dffcd41cd2d403c9d5146284f17583e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Alan's summary corresponds to what I had understood the discussion to be. --MM > -----Original Message----- > > * The ICG should not decide the "value" of comments; > * The ICG should ensure that all comments are forwarded to the > relevant communities; > * Forwarding of comments to the communities may be done via a > "push" process, in which the ICG secretariat sends a message to > the community whenever a comment is received, or via a "pull" process > in which the community monitors the ICG forum. > * If a community wished to use a "pull" process, then that community > must send a written request to the ICG. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From apb at cequrux.com Thu Mar 19 14:34:59 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Response to questions asked of CRISP Team In-Reply-To: <20150319080033.GL27102@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20150319080033.GL27102@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <20150319143459.GR27102@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Alan Barrett wrote: >I refer to the questions that Paul Wilson forwarded from the ICG >to the CRISP Team on 24 Feb 2015. > >The CRISP Team has the following response: >>Question1: >>What specifically is the "element of oversight" which is referred to >>in this section, and how is it to be replaced under this proposal? > >The element of oversight that the NTIA provides for the IANA Numbering >Services is the ability to change the contract with ICANN. > >This is stated in the very next paragraph of the CRISP proposal (the >last paragraph of section III.B.2), immediately after the sentence >that says "it would remove a significant element of oversight": There is a mistake in the section number. It should be II.B.2, not III.B.2. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Mar 20 04:50:18 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:50:18 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Prepare for Face-to-Face Meetings in Istanbul Message-ID: <006401d062c9$61be89d0$253b9d70$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Please see the public announcement posted regarding the Face-to-Face meetings scheduled for CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship linked (and in full) below: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-19-en CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Prepare for Face-to-Face Meetings in Istanbul The CCWG-Accountability and the CWG-Stewardship will each hold a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul, Turkey the week of 23-27 March 2015. The CWG and CCWG leaders coordinated the location, agreeing that holding their respective two-day meetings consecutively was the best way to apply resources and manage joint efforts. These decisive meetings are scheduled to help reinforce each group's respective project plans and timelines, both anticipating drafts for public comment in April. Meetings are open to observers 1 through Adobe Connect, and the working sessions will be recorded and transcribed. _____ CCWG-Accountability Schedule: 23 March - 07:00-16:00 UTC ( time converter) 24 March - 07:00-16:00 UTC ( time converter) Virtual Meeting Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Provisional Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/pAonAw _____ 25 March - Travel Day Joint CWG-CCWG co-Chairs Coordination Meetings _____ CWG-Stewardship Schedule: 26 March - 07:00-16:00 UTC ( time converter) 27 March - 07:00-16:00 UTC ( time converter) Virtual Meeting Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana Provisional Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/1QonAw _____ For more information on the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes visit: https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability. _____ 1 As a reminder, these face-to-face meetings are working meetings for the CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship. Like all working meetings, participation is limited to members and participants. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Tue Mar 24 07:59:08 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:59:08 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 Message-ID: Hi, I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have us facilitate something. Is this satisfactory to everyone? Patrik Fältström ICG Co-Chair From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Wed Mar 25 02:46:31 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:46:31 +1100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. Thanks Narelle > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Patrik Fältström > Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 > > Hi, > > I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. > > My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June 18-19 > have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. > > We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions > between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such strong > requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names and CCWG > Accountability might have a busy week. > > I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of the > groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have us facilitate > something. > > Is this satisfactory to everyone? > > Patrik Fältström > ICG Co-Chair > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Wed Mar 25 03:38:16 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:38:16 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <822A49C9-A3FF-4E37-BBD9-D0F494E552FD@frobbit.se> This is understood and noted. Many ICG members did leave last ICANN meeting. That said, I heard the main reason for having this last "get together" was to collect whatever we have gathered during the week so by definition it has to be as late as possible. I presume we can, if we have the meeting, decide it is "for the ones being on site", hope that people can participate remotely, and of course take that into account when we decide how to use the time (not make any decisions etc). Patrik > On 25 mar 2015, at 03:46, Narelle Clark wrote: > > I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. > > > Thanks > > > Narelle > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Patrik Fältström >> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >> >> Hi, >> >> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >> >> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June 18-19 >> have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >> >> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions >> between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such strong >> requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names and CCWG >> Accountability might have a busy week. >> >> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of the >> groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have us facilitate >> something. >> >> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >> >> Patrik Fältström >> ICG Co-Chair >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed Mar 25 10:34:40 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 06:34:40 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <822A49C9-A3FF-4E37-BBD9-D0F494E552FD@frobbit.se> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <822A49C9-A3FF-4E37-BBD9-D0F494E552FD@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <55128F40.1040900@oracle.com> I too will not be able to make a later meeting due to obligations at the OECD. On 3/24/2015 11:38 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > This is understood and noted. Many ICG members did leave last ICANN meeting. > > That said, I heard the main reason for having this last "get together" was to collect whatever we have gathered during the week so by definition it has to be as late as possible. > > I presume we can, if we have the meeting, decide it is "for the ones being on site", hope that people can participate remotely, and of course take that into account when we decide how to use the time (not make any decisions etc). > > Patrik > >> On 25 mar 2015, at 03:46, Narelle Clark wrote: >> >> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Patrik Fältström >>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>> >>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June 18-19 >>> have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>> >>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions >>> between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such strong >>> requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names and CCWG >>> Accountability might have a busy week. >>> >>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of the >>> groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have us facilitate >>> something. >>> >>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>> >>> Patrik Fältström >>> ICG Co-Chair >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Mar 25 13:01:54 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:01:54 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Narelle Clark > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM > To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 > > I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours as > possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. > > > Thanks > > > Narelle > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > > Patrik Fältström > > Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM > > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > > Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 > > > > Hi, > > > > I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. > > > > My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June > > 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. > > > > We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions > > between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such > > strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names > > and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. > > > > I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of > > the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have > > us facilitate something. > > > > Is this satisfactory to everyone? > > > > Patrik Fältström > > ICG Co-Chair > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Wed Mar 25 14:45:44 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:45:44 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <12B940F7-CBEA-4A85-8547-1357E3C9A344@frobbit.se> Ok, seems to be this is the view --- so far. If some people still think we SHOULD have a meeting end of the week, please speak up! Patrik > On 25 mar 2015, at 14:01, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. > Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. > If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Narelle Clark >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >> >> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours as >> possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Patrik Fältström >>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>> >>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June >>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>> >>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions >>> between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such >>> strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names >>> and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. >>> >>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of >>> the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have >>> us facilitate something. >>> >>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>> >>> Patrik Fältström >>> ICG Co-Chair >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed Mar 25 15:12:32 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> I can see the rationale for holding a meeting the week after. And, I also see the benefit of holding another meeting on site at the end of the ICANN week *IF* some ICG members would have the opportunity to meet face-to-face with members of the CWG Names and/or CCWG Accountability WG simply in order to advance our understanding of the progress made/remaining issues. No decisions would be taken (as Patrik already said), and of course the meeting would be recorded, translated and transcribed. Will the results of the legal study be done/available by the time of the meeting, as this would likely benefit from additional discussion as well. Lynn On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. > Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. > If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Narelle Clark >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >> >> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours as >> possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Patrik Fältström >>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>> >>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June >>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>> >>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions >>> between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such >>> strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names >>> and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. >>> >>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of >>> the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have >>> us facilitate something. >>> >>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>> >>> Patrik Fältström >>> ICG Co-Chair >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Wed Mar 25 16:22:38 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:22:38 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A0F1CE@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I do see value in a meeting on the Thursday as a taking stock session and I can do it (I'm travelling on Friday). That others can't is a pity, but if there are enough of us still in BA on Thursday (which is the last day of the ICANN meeting), I'd think it worth going ahead. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: 25 March 2015 17:13 To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 I can see the rationale for holding a meeting the week after. And, I also see the benefit of holding another meeting on site at the end of the ICANN week *IF* some ICG members would have the opportunity to meet face-to-face with members of the CWG Names and/or CCWG Accountability WG simply in order to advance our understanding of the progress made/remaining issues. No decisions would be taken (as Patrik already said), and of course the meeting would be recorded, translated and transcribed. Will the results of the legal study be done/available by the time of the meeting, as this would likely benefit from additional discussion as well. Lynn On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. > Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. > If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >> Of Narelle Clark >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >> >> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours >> as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>> Of Patrik Fältström >>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>> >>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June >>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>> >>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate >>> discussions between the operational communities, but I have not >>> heard any such strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and >>> specifically CWG Names and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. >>> >>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs >>> of the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to >>> have us facilitate something. >>> >>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>> >>> Patrik Fältström >>> ICG Co-Chair >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Wed Mar 25 19:51:33 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 19:51:33 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Aren't we having a call in 10 minutes? We can discuss it then > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf > Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:13 AM > To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 > > I can see the rationale for holding a meeting the week after. And, I > also see the benefit of holding another meeting on site at the end of > the ICANN week *IF* some ICG members would have the opportunity > to meet face-to-face with members of the CWG Names and/or CCWG > Accountability WG simply in order to advance our understanding of the > progress made/remaining issues. No decisions would be taken (as > Patrik already said), and of course the meeting would be recorded, > translated and transcribed. Will the results of the legal study be > done/available by the time of the meeting, as this would likely benefit > from additional discussion as well. > > Lynn > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another > meeting at the tail end of this. > > Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in > the air or traveling back during the proposed time. > > If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting > a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos > Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. > > > > --MM > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > Behalf > >> Of Narelle Clark > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM > >> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 > >> > >> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours > >> as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for > this trip. > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> > >> Narelle > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > Behalf > >>> Of Patrik Fältström > >>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM > >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. > >>> > >>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on > June > >>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. > >>> > >>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate > >>> discussions between the operational communities, but I have not > >>> heard any such strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and > >>> specifically CWG Names and CCWG Accountability might have a > busy week. > >>> > >>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs > >>> of the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to > >>> have us facilitate something. > >>> > >>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? > >>> > >>> Patrik Fältström > >>> ICG Co-Chair > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org > >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From keith at internetnz.net.nz Wed Mar 25 19:59:20 2015 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:59:20 +1300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <55131398.5040507@internetnz.net.nz> Call was cancelled Milton... Cheers Keith On 26/03/2015 8:51 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote: > Aren't we having a call in 10 minutes? We can discuss it then > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >> Of Lynn St.Amour >> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:13 AM >> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >> >> I can see the rationale for holding a meeting the week after. And, I >> also see the benefit of holding another meeting on site at the end of >> the ICANN week *IF* some ICG members would have the opportunity >> to meet face-to-face with members of the CWG Names and/or CCWG >> Accountability WG simply in order to advance our understanding of the >> progress made/remaining issues. No decisions would be taken (as >> Patrik already said), and of course the meeting would be recorded, >> translated and transcribed. Will the results of the legal study be >> done/available by the time of the meeting, as this would likely benefit >> from additional discussion as well. >> >> Lynn >> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >> >>> I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another >> meeting at the tail end of this. >>> Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in >> the air or traveling back during the proposed time. >>> If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting >> a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos >> Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >> Behalf >>>> Of Narelle Clark >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >>>> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>>> >>>> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours >>>> as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for >> this trip. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> Narelle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >> Behalf >>>>> Of Patrik Fältström >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>>>> >>>>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on >> June >>>>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>>>> >>>>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate >>>>> discussions between the operational communities, but I have not >>>>> heard any such strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and >>>>> specifically CWG Names and CCWG Accountability might have a >> busy week. >>>>> >>>>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs >>>>> of the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to >>>>> have us facilitate something. >>>>> >>>>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>>>> >>>>> Patrik Fältström >>>>> ICG Co-Chair >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Mar 25 20:04:06 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:04:06 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local>, <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: My thoughts are aligned with those expressed by Milton & Narelle. Thanks-- J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy > On Mar 25, 2015, at 09:02, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. > Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. > If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Narelle Clark >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >> >> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours as >> possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Patrik Fältström >>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>> >>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June >>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>> >>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions >>> between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such >>> strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names >>> and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. >>> >>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of >>> the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have >>> us facilitate something. >>> >>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>> >>> Patrik Fältström >>> ICG Co-Chair >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mundy at tislabs.com Wed Mar 25 22:48:30 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A0F1CE@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A0F1CE@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: I agree with Martin’s approach. RussM On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > I do see value in a meeting on the Thursday as a taking stock session and I can do it (I'm travelling on Friday). That others can't is a pity, but if there are enough of us still in BA on Thursday (which is the last day of the ICANN meeting), I'd think it worth going ahead. > > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour > Sent: 25 March 2015 17:13 > To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 > > I can see the rationale for holding a meeting the week after. And, I also see the benefit of holding another meeting on site at the end of the ICANN week *IF* some ICG members would have the opportunity to meet face-to-face with members of the CWG Names and/or CCWG Accountability WG simply in order to advance our understanding of the progress made/remaining issues. No decisions would be taken (as Patrik already said), and of course the meeting would be recorded, translated and transcribed. Will the results of the legal study be done/available by the time of the meeting, as this would likely benefit from additional discussion as well. > > Lynn > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. >> Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. >> If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>> Of Narelle Clark >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >>> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>> >>> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours >>> as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> Narelle >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Patrik Fältström >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>>> >>>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June >>>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>>> >>>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate >>>> discussions between the operational communities, but I have not >>>> heard any such strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and >>>> specifically CWG Names and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. >>>> >>>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs >>>> of the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to >>>> have us facilitate something. >>>> >>>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>>> >>>> Patrik Fältström >>>> ICG Co-Chair >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Wed Mar 25 23:22:26 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:22:26 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <, <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <>> Message-ID: <7DC17A7A-D663-4F12-8F82-D0DD1E394A75@frobbit.se> Noted > On 25 mar 2015, at 21:04, James M. Bladel wrote: > > My thoughts are aligned with those expressed by Milton & Narelle. > > Thanks-- > > J. > ____________ > James Bladel > GoDaddy > >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 09:02, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. >> Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. >> If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Narelle Clark >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >>> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>> >>> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours as >>> possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> Narelle >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Patrik Fältström >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>>> >>>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June >>>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>>> >>>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate discussions >>>> between the operational communities, but I have not heard any such >>>> strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and specifically CWG Names >>>> and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. >>>> >>>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs of >>>> the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to have >>>> us facilitate something. >>>> >>>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>>> >>>> Patrik Fältström >>>> ICG Co-Chair >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed Mar 25 23:22:40 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:22:40 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A0F1CE@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <928204D4-F57C-49C0-BD49-2494037DE97F@frobbit.se> Noted! > On 25 mar 2015, at 23:48, Russ Mundy wrote: > > I agree with Martin’s approach. RussM > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > >> I do see value in a meeting on the Thursday as a taking stock session and I can do it (I'm travelling on Friday). That others can't is a pity, but if there are enough of us still in BA on Thursday (which is the last day of the ICANN meeting), I'd think it worth going ahead. >> >> Martin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >> Sent: 25 March 2015 17:13 >> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >> >> I can see the rationale for holding a meeting the week after. And, I also see the benefit of holding another meeting on site at the end of the ICANN week *IF* some ICG members would have the opportunity to meet face-to-face with members of the CWG Names and/or CCWG Accountability WG simply in order to advance our understanding of the progress made/remaining issues. No decisions would be taken (as Patrik already said), and of course the meeting would be recorded, translated and transcribed. Will the results of the legal study be done/available by the time of the meeting, as this would likely benefit from additional discussion as well. >> >> Lynn >> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. >>> Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. >>> If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Narelle Clark >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >>>> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>>> >>>> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to ours >>>> as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> Narelle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>>> Of Patrik Fältström >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>>>> >>>>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June >>>>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>>>> >>>>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate >>>>> discussions between the operational communities, but I have not >>>>> heard any such strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and >>>>> specifically CWG Names and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. >>>>> >>>>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective chairs >>>>> of the groups and see whether there is interest from their side to >>>>> have us facilitate something. >>>>> >>>>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>>>> >>>>> Patrik Fältström >>>>> ICG Co-Chair >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu Mar 26 07:16:21 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:16:21 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <928204D4-F57C-49C0-BD49-2494037DE97F@frobbit.se> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A0F1CE@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <928204D4-F57C-49C0-BD49-2494037DE97F@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <23FDDBB004FF9C4B8B30D6E4C2ECA4CC0DC4F133@ntra-mbx.TRA.GOV.EG> Many thanks Patrik and colleagues .. I see the different points of view but I feel obliged to speak for the meeting as I believe it was my idea :) !! Here is what I shared earlier in response to an email from Alissa regarding the agenda of our call on Feb 25th .. "(5) Next Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires [MI]: If time allows, I suggest adding this as an agenda item to agree whether the meeting will be before or after the ICANN week .. I recall this was discussed in Singapore but not concluded .. If no further discussion is needed maybe a Doodle poll will serve the purpose .. and if time doesn't allow we can definitely discuss online .. The reason I brought this up is that the hotels are already announced and it will be good to know early on the dates of any additional days .. As I will not be on the call, I'll share my opinion here .. If I recall correctly, we've met 'after' in Istanbul (and LA?) and 'before' in Singapore .. I think meeting before was useful in aligning views, making sure everyone is on the same page, agreeing on messages that need to be conveyed, etc . .. Having said that, and if ICG members' flights allow, a couple of hours to wrap up, at the end, after the public forum, may also be useful .." 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: Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:23 AM To: Russ Mundy Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 Noted! > On 25 mar 2015, at 23:48, Russ Mundy wrote: > > I agree with Martin's approach. RussM > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > >> I do see value in a meeting on the Thursday as a taking stock session and I can do it (I'm travelling on Friday). That others can't is a pity, but if there are enough of us still in BA on Thursday (which is the last day of the ICANN meeting), I'd think it worth going ahead. >> >> Martin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >> Of Lynn St.Amour >> Sent: 25 March 2015 17:13 >> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >> >> I can see the rationale for holding a meeting the week after. And, I also see the benefit of holding another meeting on site at the end of the ICANN week *IF* some ICG members would have the opportunity to meet face-to-face with members of the CWG Names and/or CCWG Accountability WG simply in order to advance our understanding of the progress made/remaining issues. No decisions would be taken (as Patrik already said), and of course the meeting would be recorded, translated and transcribed. Will the results of the legal study be done/available by the time of the meeting, as this would likely benefit from additional discussion as well. >> >> Lynn >> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> I completely agree with Narelle, I am opposed to adding another meeting at the tail end of this. >>> Remote participation will be of little use because most of us will be in the air or traveling back during the proposed time. >>> If we need a meeting it would be better to hold a telephone meeting a week afterwards, that way we can digest what happened in Buenos Aires after our initial meeting and discuss what to do about it. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Narelle Clark >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:47 PM >>>> To: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>>> >>>> I would really prefer any additional meetings to be as close to >>>> ours as possible as I would like to minimise the time I need to take for this trip. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> Narelle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Patrik Fältström >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:59 PM >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am looking into the detailed logistics for the BA meeting. >>>>> >>>>> My suggestion is that ICG part from the work sessions 9-17 on June >>>>> 18-19 have one working session also on Thursday June 25 9-13. >>>>> >>>>> We have discussed whether we should also try to facilitate >>>>> discussions between the operational communities, but I have not >>>>> heard any such strong requests yet, and do think the OCs and >>>>> specifically CWG Names and CCWG Accountability might have a busy week. >>>>> >>>>> I will though as co-chair of ICG reach out to the respective >>>>> chairs of the groups and see whether there is interest from their >>>>> side to have us facilitate something. >>>>> >>>>> Is this satisfactory to everyone? >>>>> >>>>> Patrik Fältström >>>>> ICG Co-Chair >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at ianacg.org >> http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From paf at frobbit.se Thu Mar 26 07:32:20 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:32:20 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Sessions during ICANN53 In-Reply-To: <23FDDBB004FF9C4B8B30D6E4C2ECA4CC0DC4F133@ntra-mbx.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC4188A2D@ACCAN01.accan.local> <8845c0568d414676aff80c85f7f927a0@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <97671D85-81C1-4A7D-85F2-7F76ECE16F9E@LStAmour.org> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A0F1CE@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <928204D4-F57C-49C0-BD49-2494037DE97F@frobbit.se> <23FDDBB004FF9C4B8B30D6E4C2ECA4CC0DC4F133@ntra-mbx.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: > On 26 mar 2015, at 08:16, Manal Ismail wrote: > > As I will not be on the call, I'll share my opinion here .. If I recall correctly, we've met 'after' in Istanbul (and LA?) and 'before' in Singapore .. I think meeting before was useful in aligning views, making sure everyone is on the same page, agreeing on messages that need to be conveyed, etc . .. Having said that, and if ICG members' flights allow, a couple of hours to wrap up, at the end, after the public forum, may also be useful .." > > Hope you find this useful .. Yes, I now remember these word of yours. Very useful that you said them, and did resend them to remind us all, thanks! Best, Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From apb at cequrux.com Fri Mar 27 15:24:35 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:24:35 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] x Message-ID: <20150327152435.GP14563@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Dear ICG Members, I am sharing a message that the chairs of the CRISP Team sent to the chairs of the names CWG. We ask the chairs of the CWG to communicate directly with the chairs of the CRISP Team if there are any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community. Regards, Alan Barrett memberof the ICG, and co-chair of CRISP Team. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:57:55 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani To: Jonathan Robinson , Lise Fuhr CC: Alan Barrett Dear Jonathan and Lise, I am writing to you as Chair of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, responsible for preparation of the numbers community's response to the ICG's Request for Proposals. It was helpful to have the update on the CWG for Naming Related Functions progress at the session in Singapore, including the revised timeline of the process proposed by the CWG-Names, with a CWG-Names proposal submission in June later this year. This revised timeline increases the need for collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as between all three stakeholder communities to progress efficiently with the timeline. We remain positive that a proposal satisfactory to all parties, can be produced through this process. The ICG's decision to seek proposals from the three separate affected communities reflects the distinct needs, mechanisms and historical development of these three communities. At the same time, developing a proposal that satisfactorily addresses stewardship of all the IANA functions is a priority for all parties. With this in mind, I would like to request that the Chairs of the CWG-Names communicate directly to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the CRISP team, regarding any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community in advance, and not wait for the final submission to the ICG. This level of direct communication and collaboration will allow all communities to consider the impact and potential compatibility issues among the proposals ahead of the ICG consolidation process, consult appropriately within their communities, and, if necessary, develop appropriate responses efficiently, rather than wait for inputs from the numbers community after the ICG consolidates proposal from all the operational communities. Such bottom-up consideration by all communities will be essential to the authority and success of any final proposal to the NTIA. I look forward to hearing of your continued progress, and to work collaboratively with you to achieve a successful outcome for all, of the IANA Stewardship transition. Kind regards, Izumi Okutani, Alan Barrett CRISP Team Chair, Vice-Chair ___________________ From apb at cequrux.com Fri Mar 27 15:28:13 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:28:13 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Message from CRISP Team chairs to Names CWG chairs Message-ID: <20150327152813.GA18494@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Dear ICG Members, I am sharing a message that the chairs of the CRISP Team sent to the chairs of the names CWG. We ask the chairs of the CWG to communicate directly with the chairs of the CRISP Team if there are any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community. Regards, Alan Barrett memberof the ICG, and co-chair of CRISP Team. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:57:55 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani To: Jonathan Robinson , Lise Fuhr CC: Alan Barrett Dear Jonathan and Lise, I am writing to you as Chair of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, responsible for preparation of the numbers community's response to the ICG's Request for Proposals. It was helpful to have the update on the CWG for Naming Related Functions progress at the session in Singapore, including the revised timeline of the process proposed by the CWG-Names, with a CWG-Names proposal submission in June later this year. This revised timeline increases the need for collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as between all three stakeholder communities to progress efficiently with the timeline. We remain positive that a proposal satisfactory to all parties, can be produced through this process. The ICG's decision to seek proposals from the three separate affected communities reflects the distinct needs, mechanisms and historical development of these three communities. At the same time, developing a proposal that satisfactorily addresses stewardship of all the IANA functions is a priority for all parties. With this in mind, I would like to request that the Chairs of the CWG-Names communicate directly to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the CRISP team, regarding any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community in advance, and not wait for the final submission to the ICG. This level of direct communication and collaboration will allow all communities to consider the impact and potential compatibility issues among the proposals ahead of the ICG consolidation process, consult appropriately within their communities, and, if necessary, develop appropriate responses efficiently, rather than wait for inputs from the numbers community after the ICG consolidates proposal from all the operational communities. Such bottom-up consideration by all communities will be essential to the authority and success of any final proposal to the NTIA. I look forward to hearing of your continued progress, and to work collaboratively with you to achieve a successful outcome for all, of the IANA Stewardship transition. Kind regards, Izumi Okutani, Alan Barrett CRISP Team Chair, Vice-Chair ___________________ From paf at frobbit.se Fri Mar 27 15:35:40 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:35:40 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] x In-Reply-To: <20150327152435.GP14563@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20150327152435.GP14563@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <7EF6B9D1-C5A2-4867-8F47-64B29EDE0B06@frobbit.se> Thanks Alan, Speaking personally, I think this is a good initiative, and I feel we have agreement that we all should collaborate as much as we can (while still not pass around things not being consensus in our respective groups in a way so that receivers might believe it is), as that will ease the forthcoming merge. Patrik > On 27 Mar 2015, at 16:24, Alan Barrett wrote: > > Dear ICG Members, > > I am sharing a message that the chairs of the CRISP Team sent to the chairs of the names CWG. We ask the chairs of the CWG to > communicate directly with the chairs of the CRISP Team > if there are any proposals or developments that might affect > the numbers community. > > Regards, > > Alan Barrett > memberof the ICG, and co-chair of CRISP Team. > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions > Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:57:55 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani > To: Jonathan Robinson , Lise Fuhr > CC: Alan Barrett > > Dear Jonathan and Lise, > > > I am writing to you as Chair of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, responsible for preparation of the numbers community's response to the ICG's Request for Proposals. > > It was helpful to have the update on the CWG for Naming Related Functions progress at the session in Singapore, including the revised timeline of the process proposed by the CWG-Names, with a CWG-Names proposal submission in June later this year. This revised timeline increases the need for collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as between all three stakeholder communities to progress efficiently with the timeline. We remain positive that a proposal satisfactory to all parties, can be produced through this process. > > The ICG's decision to seek proposals from the three separate affected communities reflects the distinct needs, mechanisms and historical development of these three communities. At the same time, developing a proposal that satisfactorily addresses stewardship of all the IANA functions is a priority for all parties. > > With this in mind, I would like to request that the Chairs of the CWG-Names communicate directly to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the CRISP team, regarding any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community in advance, and not wait for the final submission to the ICG. > > This level of direct communication and collaboration will allow all communities to consider the impact and potential compatibility issues among the proposals ahead of the ICG consolidation process, consult appropriately within their communities, and, if necessary, develop appropriate responses efficiently, rather than wait for inputs from the numbers community after the ICG consolidates proposal from all the operational communities. Such bottom-up consideration by all communities will be essential to the authority and success of any final proposal to the NTIA. > > I look forward to hearing of your continued progress, and to work collaboratively with you to achieve a successful outcome for all, of the IANA Stewardship transition. > > > > > Kind regards, > > Izumi Okutani, Alan Barrett > CRISP Team Chair, Vice-Chair > ___________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 27 15:50:16 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:50:16 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Letter ccNSO Decision-Making Process References: <1575E22102021C4F8F4F927D4948B2F3B125F54B@EXCH-01.CORP.CIRA.CA> <013e01d067d7$6052e7e0$20f8b7a0$@afilias.info> Message-ID: <706e548b37164197beb12691790e7516@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> This letter could be relevant to our time line planning. It implies that ccNSO is that it will only proceed to approval with final proposals available for prior community review. --MM From: Byron Holland [mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca] Sent: 26 March 2015 17:04 To: rickert at anwaelte.de; leonfelipe at sanchez.mx; lise.fuhr at difo.dk; Mathieu Weill; jrobinson at afilias.info Cc: ccnso-council at icann.org Subject: Letter ccNSO Decision-Making Process Dear Lise, Jonathan, Leon, Mathieu, and Thomas, Please find attached a letter on behalf of the ccNSO Council. Kind regards, Byron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ccNSO Letter Decision Making Process.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52388 bytes Desc: ccNSO Letter Decision Making Process.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sun Mar 29 09:45:59 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:45:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timeline for CWG IANA Message-ID: All, CCWG-accountability and CWG-transition hold FSF meetings in Istanbul the last week where some of us participated in person or remotely. One of the major outcomes of the CWG meeting affecting the ICG work is their timeline which may still be at risk with regards to the CWG consensus building: << Key Dates · 10 April – deadline for DTs to provide content · 13-14 Intensive working days – Preparing final proposal · 20 Apr (Monday) – Start of Public Comment for 30 days · 20 May (Wednesday) – Close of Public Comment - - - Review public Comments / Continue Proposal Development - - · 30 May (Saturday) – High-Intensity weekend · 08 Jun (Monday) – Deliver Names Proposal to SOs/ACs · 25 Jun (Thursday) - Deliver Names Proposal to ICG >> I think we should take this into consideration when talking about the next steps of ICG work. More information from the CWG FSF meeting is available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890325 Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 92 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sun Mar 29 11:10:36 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:10:36 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Timeline for CWG IANA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EFBE894-462A-4711-81BB-6E17A11CEF5D@frobbit.se> Thanks for this information. Very useful. Regards, Patrik > On 29 mar 2015, at 11:45, WUKnoben wrote: > > All, > > CCWG-accountability and CWG-transition hold FSF meetings in Istanbul the last week where some of us participated in person or remotely. > > One of the major outcomes of the CWG meeting affecting the ICG work is their timeline which may still be at risk with regards to the CWG consensus building: > > << > Key Dates > · 10 April – deadline for DTs to provide content > · 13-14 Intensive working days – Preparing final proposal > · 20 Apr (Monday) – Start of Public Comment for 30 days > · 20 May (Wednesday) – Close of Public Comment > - - - Review public Comments / Continue Proposal Development - - > · 30 May (Saturday) – High-Intensity weekend > · 08 Jun (Monday) – Deliver Names Proposal to SOs/ACs > · 25 Jun (Thursday) - Deliver Names Proposal to ICG > > >> > > I think we should take this into consideration when talking about the next steps of ICG work. > > More information from the CWG FSF meeting is available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890325 > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at ianacg.org > http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: