From jen at icgsec.asia Fri May 1 01:01:51 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:01:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Public announcement posted: ICG Announces Update Regarding Community Comments and the ICG Forum Message-ID: <016601d083aa$69938960$3cba9c20$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please see the public announcement announcing the publishing of the community comments handling process and the new email address and archives for the ICG Forum. https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-update-regarding-community-comments-and -the-icg-forum/ Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Fri May 1 05:51:15 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 06:51:15 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497ECBD4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> <1C9D9993-E235-4904-B584-3DA2412348AF@gmail.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497ECBD4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <9DB83DD5-6D5C-4C9C-ACD5-CC12C53DC4D5@piuha.net> Folks: Based on the continuation of the thread, I wanted to advocate calmness and careful analysis. I’m quoting Andrew who said the following on the CWG list: "I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however." 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 Fri May 1 05:57:45 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 15:57:45 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <44A34526-6D50-4E65-96EF-315BF27E6573@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> <44A34526-6D50-4E65-96EF-315BF27E6573@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAF040@ACCAN01.accan.local> I am thinking somewhat out loud here. The query I was formulating was one where we requested clarification from the ICANN board and CEO as to the truth of the reports, and therefore also, if true, their imposed bounds on ICANN counsel's legal intervention into the process. This gives everyone a chance to stop and draw breath. "The ICG has become aware of claims that critical pieces of the IETF and RIR proposals for IANA operation post NTIA stewardship are being contested by ICANN's legal counsel through negotiation of the terms of the existing SLA and proposed models. The ICG therefore seeks clarification of these reports, and specifically to the extent which they are acting under instructions of ICANN." We may wish to further include a request for clarification of their imposed bounds on ICANN counsel's legal intervention into the process. Ie how much of the proposals are therefore considered unacceptable by ICANN's counsel, and also by the ICANN board and CEO. We may wish to point out that, if true, this activity runs the risk of being seen by the community to be fundamentally at odds with the principle of 'enhancing the multistakeholder model'. These latter two points require the first case to be true, and to be the instructed (by the Board and/or management of ICANN) actions of ICANN's counsel. Best regards Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, 1 May 2015 1:01 AM To: Narelle Clark Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Hi Narelle, Could you elaborate a bit more about what sort of query would work here? What would we be asking and of whom? Thanks, Alissa On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > I have to admit that I share some of Kavouss' concerns about intervention here. Kuo Wei has undertaken to investigate. > > That said, I must also express the most extreme concern with respect to what it is being reported from the ARIN meeting. In my experience, it is normal business practice to have some - shall we call it - "Lawyer post-processing" of a set of principles, process or agreement to be contracted/under contract, but these reports, if true, appear to threaten the good faith process everyone is undertaking and therefore even the multi-stakeholder model itself. > > Indeed, at the heart of the NTIA criteria is that any new system must support and enhance the multistakeholder model. > > I would prefer the "statement" be addressed as a query. And couple with that a reminder of the essential part of the transition. > > This would be a more conciliatory approach to this issue. > > > Best regards > > > Narelle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Milton L Mueller > Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 1:42 AM > To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Good statement. I support it as is. > >> -----Original Message----- >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions >> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in >> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. >> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus proposals >> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of the >> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the same >> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within established community processes. >> >> --- >> >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s >> memo raised a question for me: >>> >>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity >> that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities >> and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? >> If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms >> of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as >> part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus >> proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the >> fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are >> not transparent to the whole involved community.” >>> >>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the >> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a >> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >> contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >> wrote: >>> >>>> Milton, >>>> >>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process >> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do >> _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>> >>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>> >>>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >> functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that >> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract >> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>>> >>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I >> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>>> >>>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or >> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed >> something similar. >>>>> >>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has >> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks >> NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat >> Transcript >>>>> >>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached >> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Jennifer >>>>> >>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll >> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >> discrepancies: >>>>> >>>>> ICG Members >>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>> >>>>> Liaisons >>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>> >>>>> Apologies >>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jennifer >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Fri May 1 06:09:08 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 16:09:08 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN In-Reply-To: <9DB83DD5-6D5C-4C9C-ACD5-CC12C53DC4D5@piuha.net> References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <6B5B4AC7-8F59-44D4-A6A6-7E870065022F@piuha.net> <1C9D9993-E235-4904-B584-3DA2412348AF@gmail.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497ECBD4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <9DB83DD5-6D5C-4C9C-ACD5-CC12C53DC4D5@piuha.net> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAF044@ACCAN01.accan.local> I have included Andrew's message below... noting: " Understanding this consensus, the IETF leadership have been negotiating with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in our annual Service Level Agreement. After some iterations, we arrived at text that we think captures the IETF consensus, but ICANN has informed us that they are unable to agree to that text right now. ICANN told us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA." -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: Friday, 1 May 2015 3:51 PM Folks: Based on the continuation of the thread, I wanted to advocate calmness and careful analysis. I'm quoting Andrew who said the following on the CWG list: "I encourage those who are interested in this go and read the message exactly as it was posted, and not a summary from someone else. It's not long. I encourage people to read it carefully, because it was written that way. I shall not say more than I said in that message, however." Jari ------------8<---------------8<---------------8<---------------8<--------------- From: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN From: Andrew Sullivan To: ianaplan at ietf.org Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:57:53 +0100 List-id: IANA Plan Dear colleagues, This is an update to the community on the current discussion between the IETF and ICANN regarding the annual SLA or Supplemental Agreement. Each year, the IETF (via the IAOC) and ICANN specify a supplemental agreement to our Memorandum of Understanding, in order to ensure that any gaps or identified operational issues are addressed. As you are aware, inspired by the request from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), last year we formed the IANAPLAN working group and achieved IETF consensus on the state of affairs with IANA registries published under the direction of the IETF. That consensus is captured in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09, which was transmitted to the ICG. In that document the community sought to have some facts acknowledged as part of any IANA transition plan: o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located at iana.org. Understanding this consensus, the IETF leadership have been negotiating with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in our annual Service Level Agreement. After some iterations, we arrived at text that we think captures the IETF consensus, but ICANN has informed us that they are unable to agree to that text right now. ICANN told us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating details of that existing agreement. We expect that as we continue towards the orderly winding down of NTIA's involvement in the IANA processes, our existing arrangements will be preserved, in keeping with IETF consensus. We will of course continue to assess the situation, agreements, and next steps, as well as developments in other operational communities. We think that the existing agreement between ICANN and the IETF makes good sense, and is good for the Internet. The IETF has stated very strongly that it supports that existing agreement. That strong support is a necessary condition for success, and we shall not waver in our commitment to the IETF's continued responsible stewardship of the protocol parameters registries. We note that the IETF community remains very satisfied with ICANN's current level of performance. The existing supplemental agreement, from last year, continues until it is replaced. We welcome your thoughts about this situation. We will continue to use the IANAPLAN mailing list for these discussions. Best regards, Jari Arkko IETF Chair Tobias Gondrom IAOC Chair Andrew Sullivan IAB Chair -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 1 07:19:13 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 09:19:13 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> <7401EA31-1FE1-4709-B0D2-F08B132A69DE@cooperw.in> <978AB39E-65A2-4788-A12C-81600E45C88A@cooperw.in> <36ee2d2bb1dc4953a77c661e494996e9@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <176E407C-5072-4CC8-89B1-1F60BB246DB2@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Dear Alissa, You wanted me to send you a copy of several messages to you and Milton and Wolf and others . I am sorry I do not have time to do that. The issue is simple YOU HAVE RAISED POINTS RELATING TO THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE SECOND DRAFT OF CWG and the activities of two other OCs..You did send one ICG Note ( statement) to two OCs ( NUMBERS AND PROTOCOLS) and you were in the final stage of sending another one in the name of ICG to these communities I did object for the course of actions that you have taken and the one that you are ( perhaps it is still in the process ) to be taken . The reasons for my objections has two fold . 1 .Procedural 1.1 Second CWG Draft has not been formally sent to the ICG ( I raised the question with Jonathan Robinson ,one of the co chair of CWG at one of the CCWG CALL and he confirmed that nothing was sent to ICG) 1.2.The second draft is at commenting period and is expected to be finalized after all commons were received and duly considered . 2.Practical approach Once we receive the CWG output, we need to carefully examine it and should we decide to send a Note outside ICG, hat Note should be approved in a formal manner with unanimity or consensus . For that we need atheist a conference call in which every body could benefited from the views of other and freely communicate with each other and exchanges views with each other. 2.Pnciples to be followed We are not alerting entity and have not been mandated as Watch Dog for any OC. to warn them or to alert them. They are experts in their area of work ,they are matured , knowledgeable and competent .They could individually and collectively detect or identify and shortcoming or deficiencies or overlapping and send their comments to CWG..However, should they raise any question to ICG we as a coordinating body would examine those questions and acts appropriately In view of the above, I am not in favour of sending ANY NOTE IN THE NAME OF ICG in regard with any issue relating to CWG SECOND DRAFT UNTIL WE FORMALLY RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL FROM THE NAMING COMMUNITY. In addition in regard with any discussion between IETF and RIRE ,on the one hand and ICANN ( MANAMGEMNET OR STAFF) on the other hand in relation with their MoU and SLA is a matter between them and ICG should not mintervene at this stage . Regards Kavouss 2015-04-30 22:30 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Hi Kavouss, > > Could you forward the original message containing your objection to the > mailing list? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > > aLISSA, > no > IT IS NOT TRUE > I HAVE OBJECTED TO BOTH > whether you have support from your team or colleagues .I have objections > for both and you have breached the rules > Kavouss > > 2015-04-30 17:04 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > >> Hi Kavouss, Manal, >> >> I would prefer if we continue this discussion on the mailing list rather >> than in private email. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> wrote: >> >> Dear Manal, >> You were absent and did not follow the matter. >> From the very begining I did object. Then Milton got in and told better >> to read the whole before objecting. >> Several messages were exchanged and I never ever agreed to send any thing >> as I am of the strong view that IETF AND rIRs do not need any raltering >> entity and ICG does not have such a mandate and Naming may not be happy >> that we took position of alerting entity for two other OCs and we are >> still in commenting period. and we have not received any formal proposal >> from CWG and we do not have such a mandate in our charter AND WE ARE NOT >> SPOKEMAN OF GOD >> That was the whole stroy. >> I did stringly object Alissa clearly bluntly and openly and with full >> awareneed radically ignored my objection in favour of few other people. >> The neutrality, impartility and fairness was not respected and the rules >> of the game was breached >> Best Regards >> KAVOUSS >> >> 2015-04-30 13:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >> >>> Alissa, >>> You need to improve your ruling. >>> You need not to take any initiatuive on behalf of any community >>> We all need to act impartial, neutralé and fair >>> fROM THE VERY BEGINING YOU TREATED ME BADLY. >>> Rember in f2f Istanbul how many time I tried to talk to you and how many >>> time you rejected that >>> Pls BE fair ,kind neutral, >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-30 13:00 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >>> >>>> I did object but some people being in a so-called ring did not want to >>>> take my objections into account >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Manal Ismail >>>> Date: 2015-04-30 9:18 GMT+02:00 >>>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>>> RIRs/IETF >>>> To: Alissa Cooper , Kavouss Arasteh < >>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> >>>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All .. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’ve been away for a whole week and am still trying to catch up with my >>>> inbox and the discussions progressing on all mailing lists !! >>>> >>>> If I understand correctly, I think we’re mixing 2 things here: >>>> >>>> - The statement to which Mr. Arasteh has objected and which >>>> did not go out yet, as far as I understand, and >>>> >>>> - The note which Alissa has already sent to the IETF and RIRs >>>> and to which I have seen no objections >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hope this helps to resolve the misunderstanding or am I missing >>>> something? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> >>>> --Manal >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf >>>> Of *Alissa Cooper >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:08 AM >>>> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh >>>> >>>> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>>> RIRs/IETF >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Kavouss, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe your objection didn’t make it to the list? These are all the >>>> mails I see from you before I made the final call for objections on the >>>> text of the note to the IETF and RIRs: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000155.html >>>> >>>> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000159.html >>>> >>>> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000241.html >>>> >>>> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000245.html >>>> >>>> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000258.html >>>> >>>> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000259.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> None of them seem to contain an objection, unless I’m missing something? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Kavouss Arasteh >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alissia >>>> >>>> I did object and you ignored that objection >>>> >>>> There are 30 ICG mnembers and I do not know apart from the handful >>>> colleagues that supoorted you whether the otehrs were objecting, sor >>>> abstention. >>>> >>>> In a domecratic process if the number of abstention is more than those >>>> supporting the process will not be carried forward. >>>> >>>> However, you openly and publicly ignored my objection and I will take >>>> the necessary measures at the next f2f meeting oposing to your ruluing . >>>> >>>> I have drafted a Consensus Building Document during and after Istanbu >>>> and there are clear procedure on how the consensus to be buils and what are >>>> the duties of the chair and co chairs in negotiating / discussing the >>>> matter with the objecting ICG member and trying to reconcile. >>>> >>>> All these procedure were totally ignored. >>>> >>>> I will also refer to that at the next f2f meeting >>>> >>>> You need to respect the views of the minority ..We are not at IETF IN >>>> WHICH YOUR SO-CALLED ROUGH CONSENSUS WORKS. >>>> >>>> UICG did not agreed to such a rought or soft or black or wghhiote >>>> consensus . >>>> >>>> Please apply the rule and please take a fair position. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-04-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>>> >>>> Hi Kavouss, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I did not receive any objections to sending the message to the IETF and >>>> RIRs, and I did see support for sending it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < >>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alissa, >>>> >>>> Thank you again >>>> >>>> It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections >>>> sent top you since several days. >>>> >>>> In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those >>>> that supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages >>>> are sent in the Name of the whole ICG where there are objections >>>> >>>> Pls clartify the matter >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >>>> >>>> Dear Milton, >>>> >>>> Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. >>>> >>>> Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as >>>> altering entity without being given any such mission. >>>> >>>> What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at >>>> this stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that >>>> ICG take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. >>>> >>>> Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or >>>> others. >>>> >>>> We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal >>>> proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and >>>> analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community >>>> at this stage >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>>> >>>> I can send a clarification. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed >>>> or do you think it would be better if you did it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>>> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM >>>> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>>> RIRs/IETF >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> FYI, these messages have been sent. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions >>>> from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. >>>> I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion >>>> concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN >>>> working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major >>>> objections on the list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear , >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the >>>> IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has >>>> recently put its proposal out for public comment < >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. >>>> We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would >>>> benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>>> >>>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information >>>> concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>>> >>>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition >>>> IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA >>>> naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, >>>> data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may >>>> want to consider a number of associated implications: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the >>>> non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also >>>> want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same >>>> entity or allowing them to be separated. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have >>>> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, >>>> including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them >>>> subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, >>>> or re-contracting with PTI. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified >>>> in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about >>>> including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the >>>> CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your >>>> community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus >>>> joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex >>>> F) >>>> >>>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed >>>> post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities >>>> be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing >>>> reviews. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>>> >>>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related >>>> services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering >>>> resources communities. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a >>>> and Annex G) >>>> >>>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to >>>> monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions >>>> the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or >>>> understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in >>>> very neutral language. >>>> >>>> I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear , >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the >>>> IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has >>>> recently put its proposal out for public comment < >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>. >>>> We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would >>>> benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>>> >>>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information >>>> concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>>> >>>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition >>>> IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA >>>> naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, >>>> data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may >>>> want to consider a number of associated implications: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the >>>> non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a >>>> question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters >>>> to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have >>>> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, >>>> including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to >>>> PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract >>>> with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an >>>> existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified >>>> in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about >>>> including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex >>>> F) >>>> >>>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed >>>> post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities >>>> be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing >>>> reviews. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>>> >>>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related >>>> services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering >>>> resources communities. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a >>>> and Annex G) >>>> >>>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to >>>> perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as >>>> they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. >>>> The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG >>>> proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the >>>> performance of the IANA naming function.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or >>>> understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to >>>> lead discussion of CWG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is my memo (attached) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was >>>> banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. >>>> >>>> But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so >>>> you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk >>>> ] >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM >>>> *To:* Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller >>>> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> *Subject:* RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>>> RIRs/IETF >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>>> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >>>> *Sent:* 20 April 2015 21:42 >>>> *To:* Milton L Mueller >>>> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>>> RIRs/IETF >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let’s shoot for 1+3. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead >>>> the discussion, please speak up. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should >>>> be 1 + 3 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>>> ] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >>>> *To:* 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>>> RIRs/IETF >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss >>>> all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am >>>> supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an >>>> appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >>>> >>>> I’d propose the following options: >>>> >>>> 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could >>>> discuss on the call >>>> >>>> 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >>>> >>>> 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought >>>> I was going to be able to do. >>>> >>>> 4. 1 + 4 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >>>> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >>>> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for >>>> RIRs/IETF >>>> *Importance:* High >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names >>>> proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a >>>> coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an >>>> informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to >>>> consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public >>>> comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our >>>> upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG >>>> proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before >>>> our call. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From: *Grace Abuhamad >>>> >>>> *Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change >>>> Announcement* >>>> >>>> *Date: *April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >>>> >>>> *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >>>> >>>> *Cc: *Brenda Brewer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the >>>> following key dates. *It is important for you to circulate this >>>> information to your communities to make sure they are informed.* The >>>> announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will >>>> circulate it to the list when posted. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now >>>> *cancelled* (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will >>>> send the cancellation notice. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC*. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Timeline for the upcoming week: >>>> >>>> - *Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC*: Publish the >>>> draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, >>>> Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 >>>> UTC. >>>> - *Tuesday 21 April*: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal >>>> (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >>>> - *Wednesday 22 April*: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. >>>> *Note*: *This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days >>>> instead of 30 days)*. >>>> - *Thursday 23 April*: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high >>>> intensity meetings) >>>> - *Friday 24 April*: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on >>>> Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >>>> >>>> We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >>>> >>>> Grace >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Fri May 1 07:43:28 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 09:43:28 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation. If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend whatever ICG will deliver to NTIA. So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of ICG and not only as an individual participating. What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because normally they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various OCs. Patrik Fältström ICG co-chair On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: > Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent of > Alissa¹s actions. > > ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is > intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed > manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa has > indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. > > Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting > feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. > > Thanks‹ > > J. > > > > On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply >> object, one must have viable reasons to object. >> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his >> resistance. >> >> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more >> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes >> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, >> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, >> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me to >> take your objections seriously. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM >>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >>> >>> Hi Kavouss, >>> >>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about >>> contracts/agreements is noted. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alussa >>>> It seems that >>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. >>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs >>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body >>> agreed >>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus >>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best >>>> regards Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>>>>> >>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun >>> discussions >>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for >>> in >>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions >>> operator. >>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus >>> proposals >>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of >>> the >>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the >>> same >>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within >>>>>> established community processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s >>>>>> memo raised a question for me: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an >>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational >>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect >>> the >>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major >>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an >>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it >>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected >>> operational >>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are >>> going >>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole >>> involved community.² >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of >>>>>>> the >>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out >>> a >>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the >>> IANA >>>>>> functions operator? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Milton, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up >>>>>>>> process >>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they >>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that >>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >>> contract >>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I >>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested >>> this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or >>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has >>> proposed >>>>>> something similar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >>> thinks >>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --MM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and >>> Chat >>>>>> Transcript >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. >>>>>>>>> Attached >>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance >>>>>>>>> roll >>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >>>>>> discrepancies: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ICG Members >>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liaisons >>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apologies >>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Fri May 1 09:30:37 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 11:30:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Patrik, I support your position, and Alissa's initiative, as a proper and timely defense of principles. Having been on the ICANN Board, and seen forces at play, I must say that awareness can never be too high about the risk of capture by various interests, generally to the detriment of the global Internet user. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Patrik Fältström" À: "James M. Bladel" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Mai 2015 09:43:28 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation. If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend whatever ICG will deliver to NTIA. So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of ICG and not only as an individual participating. What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because normally they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various OCs. Patrik Fältström ICG co-chair On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: > Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent of > Alissa¹s actions. > > ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is > intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed > manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa has > indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. > > Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting > feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. > > Thanks‹ > > J. > > > > On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply >> object, one must have viable reasons to object. >> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his >> resistance. >> >> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more >> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes >> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, >> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, >> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me to >> take your objections seriously. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM >>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >>> >>> Hi Kavouss, >>> >>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about >>> contracts/agreements is noted. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alussa >>>> It seems that >>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. >>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs >>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body >>> agreed >>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus >>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best >>>> regards Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>>>>> >>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun >>> discussions >>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for >>> in >>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions >>> operator. >>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus >>> proposals >>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of >>> the >>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the >>> same >>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within >>>>>> established community processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s >>>>>> memo raised a question for me: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an >>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational >>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect >>> the >>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major >>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an >>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it >>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected >>> operational >>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are >>> going >>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole >>> involved community.² >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of >>>>>>> the >>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out >>> a >>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the >>> IANA >>>>>> functions operator? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Milton, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up >>>>>>>> process >>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they >>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that >>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >>> contract >>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I >>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested >>> this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or >>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has >>> proposed >>>>>> something similar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >>> thinks >>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --MM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and >>> Chat >>>>>> Transcript >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. >>>>>>>>> Attached >>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance >>>>>>>>> roll >>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >>>>>> discrepancies: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ICG Members >>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liaisons >>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apologies >>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 1 09:48:03 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 11:48:03 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: Dear Subrenat, Thank you very much for your useful and valid viesws When you say , "WE"whom you referring ? ÏCG"? I do not belieive that we ICG as a collegial body have been given any mandate to take any action in this regard unless OCs referred the complaint in question to us within the process of IANA transition process. Once we formally received any complaint and found that it merely relates to IABNA TRANSITION and not existing procedure between ICANN and OCs ,then we could examine the care and findout whether we need to take any action in that regard Once again if it relates to CWG SECOND DRAFT WHICH IS ON PUBLIC COMMENT ,WE SHALL NOT INTERVENE AS WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY RECEIVED ANY THING FROM CWG. We are not spokemen of IETF nor RIREs Regards KAVOUSS 2015-05-01 11:30 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > Dear Patrik, > > I support your position, and Alissa's initiative, as a proper and timely > defense of principles. Having been on the ICANN Board, and seen forces at > play, I must say that awareness can never be too high about the risk of > capture by various interests, generally to the detriment of the global > Internet user. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Patrik Fältström" > À: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Mai 2015 09:43:28 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as > co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that > _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up > multistakeholder participation. > > If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process > defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend whatever > ICG will deliver to NTIA. > > So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of ICG > and not only as an individual participating. > > What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not > understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because normally > they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various OCs. > > Patrik Fältström > ICG co-chair > > On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: > > > Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent > of > > Alissa¹s actions. > > > > ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is > > intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed > > manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa has > > indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. > > > > Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting > > feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. > > > > Thanks‹ > > > > J. > > > > > > > > On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > >> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply > >> object, one must have viable reasons to object. > >> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his > >> resistance. > >> > >> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more > >> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes > >> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, > >> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, > >> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me > to > >> take your objections seriously. > >> > >> --MM > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM > >>> To: Kavouss Arasteh > >>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > >>> > >>> Hi Kavouss, > >>> > >>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about > >>> contracts/agreements is noted. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Alissa > >>> > >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Alussa > >>>> It seems that > >>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. > >>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs > >>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body > >>> agreed > >>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus > >>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best > >>>> regards Kavouss > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>> > >>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship > >>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun > >>> discussions > >>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for > >>> in > >>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has > >>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all > >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions > >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the > >>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, > >>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other > >>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions > >>> operator. > >>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus > >>> proposals > >>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the > >>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of > >>> the > >>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the > >>> same > >>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within > >>>>>> established community processes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s > >>>>>> memo raised a question for me: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very > >>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an > >>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational > >>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect > >>> the > >>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major > >>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an > >>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it > >>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected > >>> operational > >>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are > >>> going > >>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole > >>> involved community.² > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out > >>> a > >>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all > >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions > >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the > >>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the > >>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with > >>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the > >>> IANA > >>>>>> functions operator? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Alissa > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour > >>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Milton, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up > >>>>>>>> process > >>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on > >>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they > >>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Lynn > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > >>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > >>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that > >>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of > >>> contract > >>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > >>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I > >>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested > >>> this. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or > >>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years > >>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has > >>> proposed > >>>>>> something similar. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG > >>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it > >>> thinks > >>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include > >>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --MM > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > >>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and > >>> Chat > >>>>>> Transcript > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. > >>>>>>>>> Attached > >>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jennifer > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear All, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance > >>>>>>>>> roll > >>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any > >>>>>> discrepancies: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ICG Members > >>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Liaisons > >>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Apologies > >>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jennifer > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 1 09:49:14 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 11:49:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: Patrik, You may react as individual ,. You as 2015-05-01 11:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Subrenat, > Thank you very much for your useful and valid viesws > When you say , "WE"whom you referring ? > ÏCG"? > I do not belieive that we ICG as a collegial body have been given any > mandate to take any action in this regard unless OCs referred the complaint > in question to us within the process of IANA transition process. > Once we formally received any complaint and found that it merely relates > to IABNA TRANSITION and not existing procedure between ICANN and OCs ,then > we could examine the care and findout whether we need to take any action in > that regard > Once again if it relates to CWG SECOND DRAFT WHICH IS ON PUBLIC COMMENT > ,WE SHALL NOT INTERVENE AS WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY RECEIVED ANY THING FROM CWG. > We are not spokemen of IETF nor RIREs > Regards > KAVOUSS > > 2015-05-01 11:30 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > >> Dear Patrik, >> >> I support your position, and Alissa's initiative, as a proper and timely >> defense of principles. Having been on the ICANN Board, and seen forces at >> play, I must say that awareness can never be too high about the risk of >> capture by various interests, generally to the detriment of the global >> Internet user. >> >> Best regards, >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Patrik Fältström" >> À: "James M. Bladel" >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Mai 2015 09:43:28 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >> >> Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as >> co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that >> _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up >> multistakeholder participation. >> >> If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process >> defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend whatever >> ICG will deliver to NTIA. >> >> So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of ICG >> and not only as an individual participating. >> >> What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not >> understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because normally >> they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various OCs. >> >> Patrik Fältström >> ICG co-chair >> >> On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: >> >> > Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent >> of >> > Alissa¹s actions. >> > >> > ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is >> > intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed >> > manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa >> has >> > indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. >> > >> > Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting >> > feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. >> > >> > Thanks‹ >> > >> > J. >> > >> > >> > >> > On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> > >> >> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply >> >> object, one must have viable reasons to object. >> >> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for >> his >> >> resistance. >> >> >> >> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more >> >> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that >> takes >> >> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, >> myself, >> >> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, >> >> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me >> to >> >> take your objections seriously. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >> >>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM >> >>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >> >>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >> >>> >> >>> Hi Kavouss, >> >>> >> >>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about >> >>> contracts/agreements is noted. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Alissa >> >>> >> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Alussa >> >>>> It seems that >> >>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. >> >>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs >> >>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body >> >>> agreed >> >>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus >> >>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best >> >>>> regards Kavouss >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >> >>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun >> >>> discussions >> >>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for >> >>> in >> >>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >> >>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >> >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >> >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >> >>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >> >>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >> >>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions >> >>> operator. >> >>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus >> >>> proposals >> >>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >> >>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of >> >>> the >> >>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the >> >>> same >> >>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within >> >>>>>> established community processes. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> --- >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s >> >>>>>> memo raised a question for me: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >> >>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an >> >>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational >> >>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect >> >>> the >> >>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major >> >>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an >> >>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it >> >>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected >> >>> operational >> >>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are >> >>> going >> >>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole >> >>> involved community.² >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out >> >>> a >> >>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >> >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their >> opinions >> >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >> >>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >> >>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >> >>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the >> >>> IANA >> >>>>>> functions operator? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Alissa >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >> >>> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Milton, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up >> >>>>>>>> process >> >>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >> >>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they >> >>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Lynn >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >> >>> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >> >>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that >> >>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >> >>> contract >> >>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >> >>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. >> I >> >>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested >> >>> this. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or >> >>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >> >>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has >> >>> proposed >> >>>>>> something similar. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG >> >>>>>>>>> has >> >>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >> >>> thinks >> >>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >> >>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> --MM >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >> >>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >> >>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and >> >>> Chat >> >>>>>> Transcript >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. >> >>>>>>>>> Attached >> >>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >> >>>>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >> >>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance >> >>>>>>>>> roll >> >>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >> >>>>>> discrepancies: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ICG Members >> >>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >> >>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >> >>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >> >>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >> >>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >> >>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >> >>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >> >>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >> >>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >> >>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >> >>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >> >>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >> >>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >> >>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >> >>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Liaisons >> >>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Apologies >> >>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >> >>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >> >>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >> >>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >> >>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >> >>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >> >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Internal-cg mailing list >> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Internal-cg mailing list >> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Fri May 1 10:06:02 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 12:06:02 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <4AF6A034-9FA8-4250-BD94-CA8E7AF7416A@frobbit.se> Dear Kavouss, I understand what you write here, that I may react as an individual, although some portion of your email seems to be cut off. I also recognize that your view is that ICG should not reach out or make a statement only based on our interpretation of some slides one OC has published, and/or a discussion within one of the OCs. What I feel though is that it is my obligation as a chair to express to the members of ICG that I share our chairs concerns that signals we see indicates, if they are correct, violations of the process we have agreed to. Having me be quiet, while our chair express her concerns, would itself be a violation of the transparency I have promised you all when I took on the position I have. I continue to read what you ICG members say in the question, and as Alissa I have recognized your objection Kavouss. Patrik Fältström Co-Chair of ICG On 1 May 2015, at 11:49, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Patrik, > You may react as individual ,. > You as > > 2015-05-01 11:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > >> Dear Subrenat, >> Thank you very much for your useful and valid viesws >> When you say , "WE"whom you referring ? >> ÏCG"? >> I do not belieive that we ICG as a collegial body have been given any >> mandate to take any action in this regard unless OCs referred the complaint >> in question to us within the process of IANA transition process. >> Once we formally received any complaint and found that it merely relates >> to IABNA TRANSITION and not existing procedure between ICANN and OCs ,then >> we could examine the care and findout whether we need to take any action in >> that regard >> Once again if it relates to CWG SECOND DRAFT WHICH IS ON PUBLIC COMMENT >> ,WE SHALL NOT INTERVENE AS WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY RECEIVED ANY THING FROM CWG. >> We are not spokemen of IETF nor RIREs >> Regards >> KAVOUSS >> >> 2015-05-01 11:30 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : >> >>> Dear Patrik, >>> >>> I support your position, and Alissa's initiative, as a proper and timely >>> defense of principles. Having been on the ICANN Board, and seen forces at >>> play, I must say that awareness can never be too high about the risk of >>> capture by various interests, generally to the detriment of the global >>> Internet user. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Patrik Fältström" >>> À: "James M. Bladel" >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Mai 2015 09:43:28 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >>> >>> Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as >>> co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that >>> _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up >>> multistakeholder participation. >>> >>> If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process >>> defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend whatever >>> ICG will deliver to NTIA. >>> >>> So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of ICG >>> and not only as an individual participating. >>> >>> What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not >>> understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because normally >>> they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various OCs. >>> >>> Patrik Fältström >>> ICG co-chair >>> >>> On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: >>> >>>> Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent >>> of >>>> Alissa¹s actions. >>>> >>>> ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is >>>> intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed >>>> manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa >>> has >>>> indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. >>>> >>>> Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting >>>> feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. >>>> >>>> Thanks‹ >>>> >>>> J. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>>> >>>>> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply >>>>> object, one must have viable reasons to object. >>>>> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for >>> his >>>>> resistance. >>>>> >>>>> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more >>>>> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that >>> takes >>>>> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, >>> myself, >>>>> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, >>>>> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me >>> to >>>>> take your objections seriously. >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM >>>>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>>>>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Kavouss, >>>>>> >>>>>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about >>>>>> contracts/agreements is noted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Alissa >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alussa >>>>>>> It seems that >>>>>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. >>>>>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs >>>>>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body >>>>>> agreed >>>>>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus >>>>>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best >>>>>>> regards Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >>>>>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun >>>>>> discussions >>>>>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >>>>>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >>>>>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >>>>>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >>>>>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >>>>>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions >>>>>> operator. >>>>>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus >>>>>> proposals >>>>>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >>>>>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the >>>>>> same >>>>>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within >>>>>>>>> established community processes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s >>>>>>>>> memo raised a question for me: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >>>>>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an >>>>>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational >>>>>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major >>>>>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an >>>>>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it >>>>>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected >>>>>> operational >>>>>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are >>>>>> going >>>>>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole >>>>>> involved community.² >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out >>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >>>>>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their >>> opinions >>>>>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >>>>>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >>>>>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the >>>>>> IANA >>>>>>>>> functions operator? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Milton, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up >>>>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >>>>>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they >>>>>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >>>>>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that >>>>>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >>>>>> contract >>>>>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >>>>>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. >>> I >>>>>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested >>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or >>>>>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >>>>>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has >>>>>> proposed >>>>>>>>> something similar. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG >>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >>>>>> thinks >>>>>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >>>>>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --MM >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and >>>>>> Chat >>>>>>>>> Transcript >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. >>>>>>>>>>>> Attached >>>>>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance >>>>>>>>>>>> roll >>>>>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >>>>>>>>> discrepancies: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ICG Members >>>>>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Liaisons >>>>>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies >>>>>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 1 10:13:41 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 12:13:41 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <4AF6A034-9FA8-4250-BD94-CA8E7AF7416A@frobbit.se> References: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <4AF6A034-9FA8-4250-BD94-CA8E7AF7416A@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Dear Patrik I never said any one keep quiet I fully respect you and every one else. What I said was that we internally could discuss any thing among us but at this stage that the second draft is on public comment we should not send any NOTE outside of the ICG unless it is consistent with our working method and agreed by consensus. We can not based ourselves on vervbal discussion between IETF and ICANN staff . This is not the ICG terms of refernce Pls kindly do not misinterprete nor para phrase my words Best regards Kavouss 2015-05-01 12:06 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström : > Dear Kavouss, > > I understand what you write here, that I may react as an individual, > although some portion of your email seems to be cut off. > > I also recognize that your view is that ICG should not reach out or make a > statement only based on our interpretation of some slides one OC has > published, and/or a discussion within one of the OCs. > > What I feel though is that it is my obligation as a chair to express to > the members of ICG that I share our chairs concerns that signals we see > indicates, if they are correct, violations of the process we have agreed to. > > Having me be quiet, while our chair express her concerns, would itself be > a violation of the transparency I have promised you all when I took on the > position I have. > > I continue to read what you ICG members say in the question, and as Alissa > I have recognized your objection Kavouss. > > Patrik Fältström > Co-Chair of ICG > > On 1 May 2015, at 11:49, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > > Patrik, > > You may react as individual ,. > > You as > > > > 2015-05-01 11:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > > > >> Dear Subrenat, > >> Thank you very much for your useful and valid viesws > >> When you say , "WE"whom you referring ? > >> ÏCG"? > >> I do not belieive that we ICG as a collegial body have been given any > >> mandate to take any action in this regard unless OCs referred the > complaint > >> in question to us within the process of IANA transition process. > >> Once we formally received any complaint and found that it merely relates > >> to IABNA TRANSITION and not existing procedure between ICANN and OCs > ,then > >> we could examine the care and findout whether we need to take any > action in > >> that regard > >> Once again if it relates to CWG SECOND DRAFT WHICH IS ON PUBLIC COMMENT > >> ,WE SHALL NOT INTERVENE AS WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY RECEIVED ANY THING FROM > CWG. > >> We are not spokemen of IETF nor RIREs > >> Regards > >> KAVOUSS > >> > >> 2015-05-01 11:30 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques : > >> > >>> Dear Patrik, > >>> > >>> I support your position, and Alissa's initiative, as a proper and > timely > >>> defense of principles. Having been on the ICANN Board, and seen forces > at > >>> play, I must say that awareness can never be too high about the risk of > >>> capture by various interests, generally to the detriment of the global > >>> Internet user. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Jean-Jacques. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Mail original ----- > >>> De: "Patrik Fältström" > >>> À: "James M. Bladel" > >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>> Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Mai 2015 09:43:28 > >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > >>> > >>> Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as > >>> co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that > >>> _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up > >>> multistakeholder participation. > >>> > >>> If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process > >>> defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend > whatever > >>> ICG will deliver to NTIA. > >>> > >>> So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of > ICG > >>> and not only as an individual participating. > >>> > >>> What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not > >>> understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because > normally > >>> they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various > OCs. > >>> > >>> Patrik Fältström > >>> ICG co-chair > >>> > >>> On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: > >>> > >>>> Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the > intent > >>> of > >>>> Alissa¹s actions. > >>>> > >>>> ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) > is > >>>> intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and > un-deinfed > >>>> manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa > >>> has > >>>> indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. > >>>> > >>>> Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting > >>>> feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks‹ > >>>> > >>>> J. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply > >>>>> object, one must have viable reasons to object. > >>>>> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for > >>> his > >>>>> resistance. > >>>>> > >>>>> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something > more > >>>>> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that > >>> takes > >>>>> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, > >>> myself, > >>>>> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, > >>>>> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect > me > >>> to > >>>>> take your objections seriously. > >>>>> > >>>>> --MM > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM > >>>>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh > >>>>>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Kavouss, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about > >>>>>> contracts/agreements is noted. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Alissa > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Alussa > >>>>>>> It seems that > >>>>>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. > >>>>>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs > >>>>>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body > >>>>>> agreed > >>>>>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus > >>>>>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again > Best > >>>>>>> regards Kavouss > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship > >>>>>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun > >>>>>> discussions > >>>>>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it > has > >>>>>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all > >>>>>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions > >>>>>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within > the > >>>>>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, > >>>>>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other > >>>>>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions > >>>>>> operator. > >>>>>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus > >>>>>> proposals > >>>>>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the > >>>>>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the > >>>>>> same > >>>>>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within > >>>>>>>>> established community processes. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s > >>>>>>>>> memo raised a question for me: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very > >>>>>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an > >>>>>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational > >>>>>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major > >>>>>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by > an > >>>>>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it > >>>>>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected > >>>>>> operational > >>>>>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are > >>>>>> going > >>>>>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole > >>>>>> involved community.² > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put > out > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all > >>>>>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their > >>> opinions > >>>>>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within > the > >>>>>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the > >>>>>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with > >>>>>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the > >>>>>> IANA > >>>>>>>>> functions operator? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Alissa > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Milton, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up > >>>>>>>>>>> process > >>>>>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on > >>>>>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and > they > >>>>>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Lynn > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > >>>>>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea > that > >>>>>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of > >>>>>> contract > >>>>>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > >>>>>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my > opinion. > >>> I > >>>>>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested > >>>>>> this. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² > or > >>>>>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years > >>>>>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has > >>>>>> proposed > >>>>>>>>> something similar. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG > >>>>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it > >>>>>> thinks > >>>>>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ > include > >>>>>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --MM > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On > >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and > >>>>>> Chat > >>>>>>>>> Transcript > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Attached > >>>>>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jennifer > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance > >>>>>>>>>>>> roll > >>>>>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any > >>>>>>>>> discrepancies: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ICG Members > >>>>>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Liaisons > >>>>>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies > >>>>>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>>>>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jennifer > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > >> > >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Fri May 1 10:26:52 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 12:26:52 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <167FBFE6-D692-4613-BFB9-5D08951DC703@frobbit.se> Thanks Jean-Jacques, Let me just be very explicit here and say that I do understand that various ICG members, although they agree with the importance of everyone following the bottom up multistakeholder process, do not agree on more precisely what triggers should be used for ICG to issue such a statement. And specifically I do not see agreement those triggers have been triggered. Patrik On 1 May 2015, at 11:30, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Dear Patrik, > > I support your position, and Alissa's initiative, as a proper and timely defense of principles. Having been on the ICANN Board, and seen forces at play, I must say that awareness can never be too high about the risk of capture by various interests, generally to the detriment of the global Internet user. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Patrik Fältström" > À: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Mai 2015 09:43:28 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation. > > If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend whatever ICG will deliver to NTIA. > > So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of ICG and not only as an individual participating. > > What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because normally they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various OCs. > > Patrik Fältström > ICG co-chair > > On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: > >> Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent of >> Alissa¹s actions. >> >> ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is >> intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed >> manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa has >> indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. >> >> Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting >> feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. >> >> Thanks‹ >> >> J. >> >> >> >> On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> >>> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply >>> object, one must have viable reasons to object. >>> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his >>> resistance. >>> >>> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more >>> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes >>> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, >>> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, >>> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me to >>> take your objections seriously. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM >>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >>>> >>>> Hi Kavouss, >>>> >>>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about >>>> contracts/agreements is noted. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Alussa >>>>> It seems that >>>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. >>>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs >>>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body >>>> agreed >>>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus >>>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best >>>>> regards Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >>>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun >>>> discussions >>>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for >>>> in >>>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >>>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >>>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >>>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >>>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >>>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions >>>> operator. >>>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus >>>> proposals >>>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >>>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of >>>> the >>>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the >>>> same >>>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within >>>>>>> established community processes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s >>>>>>> memo raised a question for me: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >>>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an >>>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational >>>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect >>>> the >>>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major >>>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an >>>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it >>>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected >>>> operational >>>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are >>>> going >>>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole >>>> involved community.² >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out >>>> a >>>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >>>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >>>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >>>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >>>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the >>>> IANA >>>>>>> functions operator? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Milton, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up >>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >>>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they >>>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >>>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that >>>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >>>> contract >>>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >>>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I >>>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested >>>> this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or >>>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >>>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has >>>> proposed >>>>>>> something similar. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >>>> thinks >>>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >>>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --MM >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and >>>> Chat >>>>>>> Transcript >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. >>>>>>>>>> Attached >>>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance >>>>>>>>>> roll >>>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >>>>>>> discrepancies: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ICG Members >>>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Liaisons >>>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Apologies >>>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Fri May 1 11:48:05 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 13:48:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <10080147.334.1430480884457.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Kavouss, in my response to Patrik, I did not once use the word "we"... Regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: "Patrik Fältström" , internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Mai 2015 11:48:03 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Dear Subrenat, Thank you very much for your useful and valid viesws When you say , "WE"whom you referring ? ÏCG"? I do not belieive that we ICG as a collegial body have been given any mandate to take any action in this regard unless OCs referred the complaint in question to us within the process of IANA transition process. Once we formally received any complaint and found that it merely relates to IABNA TRANSITION and not existing procedure between ICANN and OCs ,then we could examine the care and findout whether we need to take any action in that regard Once again if it relates to CWG SECOND DRAFT WHICH IS ON PUBLIC COMMENT ,WE SHALL NOT INTERVENE AS WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY RECEIVED ANY THING FROM CWG. We are not spokemen of IETF nor RIREs Regards KAVOUSS 2015-05-01 11:30 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques < jjs at dyalog.net > : Dear Patrik, I support your position, and Alissa's initiative, as a proper and timely defense of principles. Having been on the ICANN Board, and seen forces at play, I must say that awareness can never be too high about the risk of capture by various interests, generally to the detriment of the global Internet user. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Patrik Fältström" < paf at frobbit.se > À: "James M. Bladel" < jbladel at godaddy.com > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Mai 2015 09:43:28 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation. If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend whatever ICG will deliver to NTIA. So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of ICG and not only as an individual participating. What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because normally they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various OCs. Patrik Fältström ICG co-chair On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: > Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent of > Alissa¹s actions. > > ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is > intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed > manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa has > indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. > > Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting > feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. > > Thanks‹ > > J. > > > > On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: > >> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply >> object, one must have viable reasons to object. >> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his >> resistance. >> >> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more >> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes >> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, >> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, >> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me to >> take your objections seriously. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto: alissa at cooperw.in ] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM >>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >>> >>> Hi Kavouss, >>> >>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about >>> contracts/agreements is noted. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >>> < kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com > wrote: >>> >>>> Alussa >>>> It seems that >>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. >>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs >>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body >>> agreed >>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus >>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best >>>> regards Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>>>>> >>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun >>> discussions >>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for >>> in >>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions >>> operator. >>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus >>> proposals >>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of >>> the >>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the >>> same >>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within >>>>>> established community processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s >>>>>> memo raised a question for me: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an >>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational >>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect >>> the >>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major >>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an >>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it >>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected >>> operational >>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are >>> going >>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole >>> involved community.² >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of >>>>>>> the >>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out >>> a >>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the >>> IANA >>>>>> functions operator? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Milton, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up >>>>>>>> process >>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they >>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >>> < mueller at syr.edu > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that >>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >>> contract >>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I >>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested >>> this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or >>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has >>> proposed >>>>>> something similar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >>> thinks >>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --MM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto: internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On >>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and >>> Chat >>>>>> Transcript >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. >>>>>>>>> Attached >>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto: jen at icgsec.asia ] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>>>>>> To: ' internal-cg at ianacg.org ' >>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance >>>>>>>>> roll >>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >>>>>> discrepancies: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ICG Members >>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liaisons >>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apologies >>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg..org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From pwilson at apnic.net Fri May 1 12:58:50 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 22:58:50 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Release of first draft ICANN-RIR SLA (per CRISP proposal) In-Reply-To: <10080147.334.1430480884457.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <10080147.334.1430480884457.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <0DDF0DCD-A4B9-482D-AD76-0A2A7CBE3A6E@apnic.net> Dear ICG Colleagues, The first draft of the proposed SLA between ICANN and the RIRs (as specified by the CRISP proposal) has now been released, here: https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services Please do take note of the cover note at that URL, which explains that the SLA development has involved NO discussions or negotiation with ICANN or other parties, to date; rather it is intended as a faithful representation of the CRISP proposal, and draws also from the existing NTIA-ICANN contract (all of which is footnoted in detail throughout the document). To quote: > A first draft of the SLA has been produced and available at http://www.nro.net/sla. The content of this draft is NOT the result of negotiations with ICANN or any other parties, and it has not yet been reviewed by the CRISP team. The RIRs do of course expect and encourage a full and open discussion of this document; and they will themselves publish their own commentary on the draft, in the near future. Thanks, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From pwilson at apnic.net Fri May 1 13:04:43 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 23:04:43 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <55576428-F2B7-4B1F-9127-B938A67D663F@apnic.net> Deal all, I do hope that cover note on the numbering SLA, just announced, sheds light on some of the issues that have been raised in this thread. https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services Thanks, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg On 27 Apr 2015, at 6:33 am, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: > > “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > > My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? > > Alissa > > On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >> Milton, >> >> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >> >> Lynn >> >> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>> >>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>> >>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>> >>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>> >>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Jennifer >>> >>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>> >>> ICG Members >>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>> >>> Liaisons >>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>> >>> Apologies >>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Jennifer >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3977 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Fri May 1 14:02:18 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 10:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 22 April 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <010d01d08174$16dcc160$44964420$@icgsec.asia> References: <010d01d08174$16dcc160$44964420$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <682694E3-8841-43C5-BD90-70C3B1B395E6@LStAmour.org> Hi Jennifer, the minutes look fine to me. Thanks, Lynn On Apr 28, 2015, at 1:27 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > The minutes for the 22 April teleconference (ICG Call #14) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/kz68zdr . > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Fri May 1 14:25:02 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 16:25:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 22 April 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <010d01d08174$16dcc160$44964420$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <7485485.443.1430490301828.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Jennifer, thanks for the minutes of the 22 April meeting, which I can accept. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Mardi 28 Avril 2015 07:27:57 Objet: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 22 April 2015 teleconference Dear All, The minutes for the 22 April teleconference (ICG Call #14) are attached and also available on Dropbox at: http://tinyurl.com/kz68zdr .. Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 1 14:36:24 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 14:36:24 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAF040@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> <44A34526-6D50-4E65-96EF-315BF27E6573@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAF040@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <884453aa37ac42d8b473db6934246b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Narelle: I like your proposed query. I think it actually supplements what Alissa and Patrik were proposing and I believe we should do both. Patrik said (with apparent agreement of Alissa) that they are "required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation." This is a very general reminder/admonition that is not directed at any particular party. Your query goes to a very specific party - the ICANN board - and addresses specific concerns that have arisen in the past week. Hence, I would support doing both. For convenience of others I reproduce it here with one proposed edit of mine: > "The ICG has become aware of claims that critical pieces of the IETF > and RIR proposals for IANA operation post NTIA stewardship are being > contested by ICANN's legal counsel. The ICG therefore seeks > clarification of these reports, and specifically to the extent which they > are acting under instructions of ICANN." I deleted the phrase "through negotiation of the terms of the existing SLA and proposed models." By doing so, I think we can avoid quibbling over whether what has happened constitutes "negotiation" and focus on the more relevant issue, which is whether ICANN legal or someone else is pushing back against the proposal outside of the OC process. --MM From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 1 14:38:07 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 14:38:07 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <12affd2356a94ea6887843f8f99e3b20@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> I do not belieive that we ICG as a collegial body have been given any mandate to take any action in this regard unless OCs referred the complaint in question to us within the process of IANA transition process. MM: Are you saying that if we get a formal request from the CRISP team and/or the IANAPlan chairs to make this query that you will approve it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri May 1 14:46:23 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 07:46:23 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for clarification - Ominous update on the IANA transition References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E87CD1B4A1@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> Message-ID: <680D8CE3-3940-4B95-883A-FEE81F90E749@cooperw.in> This is relevant to our ongoing discussions about contracting/agreements so I thought I would pass it along. The full thread begins here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-April/002659.html Begin forwarded message: > From: Bruce Tonkin > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for clarification - Ominous update on the IANA transition > Date: April 30, 2015 at 3:48:32 PM PDT > To: Accountability Cross Community > > Hello Thomas, > > >>> as you will have seen on the list, a discussion has started on the article referred to in the e-mail below about the Board’s and ICANN legal’s position with respect to community proposals and relating negotiations. > >>> We would like to ask you as Board liaison to clarify the Board’s position and plans with respect to proposals provided by the community. Further, we would like to get clarity on the role ICANN legal plays in this and whether negotiations that were referred to are based on instructions by the Board. > > The Board's position hasn't changed on the process. > > With respect to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) we made a commitment that we would pass on their final proposals to the NTIA without change. If we have any concerns with those proposal we would communicate those to the NTIA publicly - but only after we have first raised any issues publicly with the community. > > With respect to the work of the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions Draft Transition Proposal, we understand that the 2nd draft is out for public comment: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en The Board will be considering this report, and will submit its comments in the public comment forum as we did after the 1st draft. > > With respect to the work of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability . We passed a resolution in Los Angeles setting out how we would be responding: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d. The Board plans to review the report from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, and will make any of its concerns public through the public comment process. > > Under the current arrangements between the IETF and IANA with respect to maintaining the protocol registries this is an annual process of reviewing the SLAs via a Supplemental Agreement. Andrew Sullivan, chair of the IAB, recently posted on this topic on one of the public IETF lists. My understanding is that there are some changes requested by the IETF following he IANA transition discussions that the legal team feel would need approval from NTIA, or were inconsistent with the current agreement with the NTIA. The feeling from staff was that it was best to wait for this to be handled as part of the IANA transition process as a whole, rather than under the existing arrangements. This does not affect any proposed operational improvements that are handled in the annual process. Operational improvements agreed in discussions between the IETF and the IANA function would not normally go through a Board approval process unless there was a material impact to the budget. There have been no instructions from the Board regarding this process. When the Board gives directives to management it is through Board resolutions that are made public. > > I am also aware that there have been various discussions between various members of the CANN management and various community leaders on concerns about some of the proposals from the IETF, RIRs, and naming community regarding separability. These concerns have been raised in the context of the fear that the proposals may make it harder to get approval from the US Government. Ideally the NTIA would give some clarity on this matter, but that doesn't seem likely until after all the ICG makes its final report to the NTIA. I think that is partly because NTIA will need to run its own process to get guidance from various parts of Government, and no doubt they will also be hauled before a US Senate hearing of some sort before they can make a decision. The Board will be considering the various proposals and if it has concerns or suggestions for improvement - that will be made through the relevant public comment process. Ultimately though once the community settles on its final proposals, I personally see the Board's role as helping support the proposals in the likely long US Government process to get support. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Fri May 1 15:38:09 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 16:38:09 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition References: Message-ID: I thought these two e-mails also provided useful information about the situation. FWIW I also agree with these characterisations. > From: Theresa Swinehart > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition > Date: 1 May 2015 16:10:42 GMT+1 > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > > Hi Andrew, > > Thank you for the statement, and agree it's an important piece to read. To > add to this, we are raising concerns because suggested new text to the > language raise a legal issue for us under the existing contract ICANN has > with NTIA. This is hopefully temporary as the NTIA contract eventually > expires. In fact, this case is an excellent example of a reason why the > transition is so essential. We have no desire to affect the results of the > community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to > maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to > not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community > consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition. > > Theresa > From: Andrew Sullivan > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition > Date: 1 May 2015 16:15:57 GMT+1 > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org > > Hi Theresa, > > Thanks for following up. The legal and timing issues were what I > understood, too. > > Thanks, > > A -------------- 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 alissa at cooperw.in Fri May 1 17:35:13 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 10:35:13 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF In-Reply-To: References: <6A3B3A06-2718-4697-BC94-F01ABD697D02@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A35485@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> <16d12486245d4eab92a878dc272d9fe3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78df8b75b8f04b39aaf73ce90ecbe133@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5F0D2BC8-680F-4E86-85EA-8F9C8B7F4CD1@cooperw.in> <7007fd9f2df047a4a37919fc1b62d89f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <818A986C-8B0B-4260-AEB5-70BC0713860A@cooperw.in> <7401EA31-1FE1-4709-B0D2-F08B132A69DE@cooperw.in> <978AB39E-65A2-4788-A12C-81600E45C88A@cooperw.in> <36ee2d2bb1dc4953a77c661e494996e9@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <176E407C-5072-4CC8-89B1-1F60BB246DB2@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <311D7FE5-B77E-4B78-9E9B-F199911D5BB3@cooperw.in> Hi Kavouss, My responses are in-line below. On May 1, 2015, at 12:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Alissa, > You wanted me to send you a copy of several messages to you and Milton and Wolf and others . > I am sorry I do not have time to do that. That is unfortunate since I sent a list of all your messages on the topic of the note to the IETF and RIRs and indicated that it was not clear which one contained the objection. All that I was asking was for you to point out which one of those contained the objection. > The issue is simple > YOU HAVE RAISED POINTS RELATING TO THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE SECOND DRAFT OF CWG and the activities of two other OCs.. I never said anything about inconsistencies, and neither did anyone else as far as I recall. The note that was sent merely points out sections of the CWG proposal that might be of interest to the other two OCs. It does not take a position about anything in the CWG proposal. > You did send one ICG Note ( statement) to two OCs ( NUMBERS AND PROTOCOLS) and you were in the final stage of sending another one in the name of ICG to these communities I do not know why you are claiming that the statement about contracts/agreements is “in the final stage.” We are having a mostly productive discussion about it in the other mailing list thread, and that discussion should continue until we have solidified what we want to say and obtained consensus to publish it. > I did object for the course of actions that you have taken and the one that you are ( perhaps it is still in the process ) to be taken . So it seems that your mails in response to the statement on contracts/agreements were also meant as objections to the note sent to the IETF and RIRs. This was not clear. In the future, it would help if you could specify when your comments apply to multiple efforts that we have ongoing at the same time, since email threading tends to imply that topics are segregated. > The reasons for my objections has two fold . > 1 .Procedural > 1.1 Second CWG Draft has not been formally sent to the ICG ( I raised the question with Jonathan Robinson ,one of the co chair of CWG at one of the CCWG CALL and he confirmed that nothing was sent to ICG) > 1.2.The second draft is at commenting period and is expected to be finalized after all commons were received and duly considered . > 2.Practical approach > Once we receive the CWG output, we need to carefully examine it and should we decide to send a Note outside ICG, hat Note should be approved in a formal manner with unanimity or consensus . The whole point of the note to the IETF and RIRs was to point out to them parts of the CWG proposal that might be of interest for them to comment on during the public comment period. It was about soliciting input from them, not about us contributing any input. > For that we need atheist a conference call in which every body could benefited from the views of other and freely communicate with each other and exchanges views with each other. Our decision-making process allows for decisions to be taken on the mailing list or at meetings . The note to the IETF and RIRs was straightforward enough to arrive at consensus without requiring meeting time. > > 2.Pnciples to be followed > We are not alerting entity and have not been mandated as Watch Dog for any OC. to warn them or to alert them. > They are experts in their area of work ,they are matured , knowledgeable and competent .They could individually and collectively detect or identify and shortcoming or deficiencies or overlapping and send their comments to CWG..However, should they raise any question to ICG we as a coordinating body would examine those questions and acts appropriately > In view of the above, I am not in favour of sending ANY NOTE IN THE NAME OF ICG in regard with any issue relating to CWG SECOND DRAFT UNTIL WE FORMALLY RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL FROM THE NAMING COMMUNITY. As our name suggests, we are a coordination group, and the goal of the note was to help aid in coordination among the three communities. Our first responsibility in our charter is to liaise with the operational communities . Since we are the ones who asked to have the separate proposal components created within distinct communities, it is incumbent upon us to help them coordinate with each other as necessary. From Izumi’s response it seems that at least the numbering community is appreciative of our efforts to help coordinate the communities. Best, Alissa > In addition in regard with any discussion between IETF and RIRE ,on the one hand and ICANN ( MANAMGEMNET OR STAFF) on the other hand in relation with their MoU and SLA is a matter between them and ICG should not mintervene at this stage . > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2015-04-30 22:30 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Hi Kavouss, > > Could you forward the original message containing your objection to the mailing list? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> aLISSA, >> no >> IT IS NOT TRUE >> I HAVE OBJECTED TO BOTH >> whether you have support from your team or colleagues .I have objections for both and you have breached the rules >> Kavouss >> >> 2015-04-30 17:04 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >> Hi Kavouss, Manal, >> >> I would prefer if we continue this discussion on the mailing list rather than in private email. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >>> Dear Manal, >>> You were absent and did not follow the matter. >>> From the very begining I did object. Then Milton got in and told better to read the whole before objecting. >>> Several messages were exchanged and I never ever agreed to send any thing as I am of the strong view that IETF AND rIRs do not need any raltering entity and ICG does not have such a mandate and Naming may not be happy that we took position of alerting entity for two other OCs and we are still in commenting period. and we have not received any formal proposal from CWG and we do not have such a mandate in our charter AND WE ARE NOT SPOKEMAN OF GOD >>> That was the whole stroy. >>> I did stringly object Alissa clearly bluntly and openly and with full awareneed radically ignored my objection in favour of few other people. >>> The neutrality, impartility and fairness was not respected and the rules of the game was breached >>> Best Regards >>> KAVOUSS >>> >>> 2015-04-30 13:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >>> Alissa, >>> You need to improve your ruling. >>> You need not to take any initiatuive on behalf of any community >>> We all need to act impartial, neutralé and fair >>> fROM THE VERY BEGINING YOU TREATED ME BADLY. >>> Rember in f2f Istanbul how many time I tried to talk to you and how many time you rejected that >>> Pls BE fair ,kind neutral, >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-04-30 13:00 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >>> I did object but some people being in a so-called ring did not want to take my objections into account >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Manal Ismail >>> Date: 2015-04-30 9:18 GMT+02:00 >>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> To: Alissa Cooper , Kavouss Arasteh >>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >>> >>> >>> Dear All .. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’ve been away for a whole week and am still trying to catch up with my inbox and the discussions progressing on all mailing lists !! >>> >>> If I understand correctly, I think we’re mixing 2 things here: >>> >>> - The statement to which Mr. Arasteh has objected and which did not go out yet, as far as I understand, and >>> >>> - The note which Alissa has already sent to the IETF and RIRs and to which I have seen no objections >>> >>> >>> >>> Hope this helps to resolve the misunderstanding or am I missing something? >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> --Manal >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:08 AM >>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>> >>> >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Kavouss, >>> >>> >>> >>> Maybe your objection didn’t make it to the list? These are all the mails I see from you before I made the final call for objections on the text of the note to the IETF and RIRs: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000155.html >>> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000159.html >>> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000241.html >>> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000245.html >>> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000258.html >>> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000259.html >>> >>> >>> >>> None of them seem to contain an objection, unless I’m missing something? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Alissia >>> >>> I did object and you ignored that objection >>> >>> There are 30 ICG mnembers and I do not know apart from the handful colleagues that supoorted you whether the otehrs were objecting, sor abstention. >>> >>> In a domecratic process if the number of abstention is more than those supporting the process will not be carried forward. >>> >>> However, you openly and publicly ignored my objection and I will take the necessary measures at the next f2f meeting oposing to your ruluing . >>> >>> I have drafted a Consensus Building Document during and after Istanbu and there are clear procedure on how the consensus to be buils and what are the duties of the chair and co chairs in negotiating / discussing the matter with the objecting ICG member and trying to reconcile. >>> >>> All these procedure were totally ignored. >>> >>> I will also refer to that at the next f2f meeting >>> >>> You need to respect the views of the minority ..We are not at IETF IN WHICH YOUR SO-CALLED ROUGH CONSENSUS WORKS. >>> >>> UICG did not agreed to such a rought or soft or black or wghhiote consensus . >>> >>> Please apply the rule and please take a fair position. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-04-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>> >>> Hi Kavouss, >>> >>> >>> >>> I did not receive any objections to sending the message to the IETF and RIRs, and I did see support for sending it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Alissa, >>> >>> Thank you again >>> >>> It seems that you have already sent the NOTE in spite of objections sent top you since several days. >>> >>> In that case such NOTE reflects your position and positions of those that supported you and in no way does represent the ICG consensus. >>> >>> Unfortunately we are entering to a dangerous phase in which messages are sent in the Name of the whole ICG where there are objections >>> >>> Pls clartify the matter >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-04-29 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : >>> >>> Dear Milton, >>> >>> Thanky you for your kind continual briefing. >>> >>> Pls read my message before acting on bejhalf of any community as altering entity without being given any such mission. >>> >>> What Alissa and what you indicating are correct but just leave it at this stage .The two communities that you are worried about and wishing that ICG take a position are now properly alerted by the draft. >>> >>> Leave it as it stands and not take a position in favour of one or others. >>> >>> We are in commenting period .We have have not received any formal proposal from CWG. I agree that we could internally discuss. examine and analyse any point but NOT ACT on behalf of or in support of any community at this stage >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-04-29 18:43 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : >>> >>> I can send a clarification. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Oy. I see that I am too late. Shall I send the emendation I proposed or do you think it would be better if you did it? >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:59 AM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> >>> >>> FYI, these messages have been sent. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-April/000470.html >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01677.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I’ve drafted a revised version of the note based on the suggestions from Milton and Mary, trying to leave the language neutral and generic. I’ve left out the jurisdiction suggestions based on how that discussion concluded with Jean-Jacques. I’ll send this separately to the IETF IANAPLAN working group and to CRISP on Wednesday afternoon UTC unless I see major objections on the list. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> >>> >>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>> >>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>> >>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >>> >>> >>> >>> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided by the same entity or allowing them to be separated. >>> >>> >>> >>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI. >>> >>> >>> >>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>> >>> >>> >>> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >>> >>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >>> >>> >>> >>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>> >>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >>> >>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>> >>> >>> >>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Great job of distilling the interdependency issues on the whole in very neutral language. >>> >>> I would propose a few edits if it’s not too late, see below: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> >>> >>> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has recently put its proposal out for public comment . We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A) >>> >>> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III) >>> >>> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications: >>> >>> >>> >>> * The possibility that personnel and resources dedicated to the non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. >>> >>> >>> >>> MM: I would replace “possibility” with “likelihood.” I would also add a question designed to elicit the other OC’s comments on whether it matters to them if the IANA functions are provided by the same organization. >>> >>> >>> >>> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options available, including subcontracting an ICANN contract to PTI, assigning a contract to PTI, or replacing a contract with a new arrangement. >>> >>> >>> >>> MM: I would rephrase the latter parts as “maintaining your contract with ICANN and letting them subcontract its execution to PTI, assigning an existing contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.” >>> >>> >>> >>> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F) >>> >>> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be reviewed post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team performing reviews. >>> >>> >>> >>> MM: insert “periodically” between “reviewed” and “post-transition” >>> >>> >>> >>> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I) >>> >>> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering resources communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 5) Composition of the Customer Standing Committee (Section II.A.ii.a and Annex G) >>> >>> The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to perform the operational responsibilities previously performed by NTIA as they relate to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the CSC. >>> >>> >>> >>> MM: would propose to simplify the first sentence thus: “The CWG proposes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function.” >>> >>> >>> >>> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin is on top of it all, definitely. He’d be a good person to lead discussion of CWG. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is my memo (attached) >>> >>> >>> >>> Disclaimer: it’s my opinion, I speak for no one but myself, and it was banged out in the middle of ongoing discussions. >>> >>> But it does try to condense the key issues into a manageable format so you don’t have to wade through 120 pages…. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:47 AM >>> To: Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> >>> >>> I’ll be on the call and have been following quite closely. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: 20 April 2015 21:42 >>> To: Milton L Mueller >>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> >>> >>> Let’s shoot for 1+3. >>> >>> >>> >>> If any of you have been participating in the CWG and would like to lead the discussion, please speak up. >>> >>> >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Pardon for the typo, which led to an infinite regress. Option 4 should be 1 + 3 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:54 PM >>> To: 'Alissa Cooper'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> >>> >>> >>> I just saw the timing for the April 22 call and I will probably miss all of it, or at best will only be able to come in for 30 minutes. I am supposed to be taking off at 6 am and landing at 8:30 am, and I have an appointment across town in the city I am flying to at 9:30. >>> >>> I’d propose the following options: >>> >>> 1. I could prepare a brief written summary that you could discuss on the call >>> >>> 2. We could defer the discussion to another time >>> >>> 3. You could try to find a backup person to do what you thought I was going to be able to do. >>> >>> 4. 1 + 4 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF >>> Importance: High >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> >>> As most of you know the CWG is driving toward issuing its names proposal for public comment on Wednesday (see below). I think as a coordination body we could help the three communities by producing an informal list of questions or issues that the RIRs and IETF may want to consider thinking about and possibly commenting on during the public comment period. Milton has agreed to lead a discussion of this topic on our upcoming call on April 22. I assume most folks are familiar with the CWG proposal at this point, but if not you may want to take a look at it before our call. >>> >>> >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Grace Abuhamad >>> >>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Plan & Timeline Change Announcement >>> >>> Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM PDT >>> >>> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" >>> >>> Cc: Brenda Brewer >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Per the Action Plan discussion on today’s call, please note the following key dates. It is important for you to circulate this information to your communities to make sure they are informed. The announcement for the Webinars will be posted in a few hours and I will circulate it to the list when posted. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also, the call planned for tomorrow Friday 17 April at 11:00 UTC is now cancelled (we were productive enough today. Bravo!). Brenda will send the cancellation notice. >>> >>> >>> >>> The next CWG call (meeting #42) is Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC. >>> >>> >>> >>> Timeline for the upcoming week: >>> >>> Friday 17 April – Monday 20 April at 23:59 UTC: Publish the draft on Friday morning UTC in order to give the group 3 days (Sat, Sun, Mon) to review and send comments. Please send comments by Monday at 23:59 UTC. >>> Tuesday 21 April: Dedicate Tuesday call to review of proposal (this can be a dry-run for the Webinars). >>> Wednesday 22 April: Publish the proposal for Public Comment. Note: This will reduce the Public Comment by two days (28 days instead of 30 days). >>> Thursday 23 April: Call TBC (there is an overlap with CCWG high intensity meetings) >>> Friday 24 April: Webinars and public briefing on Proposal on Friday at 06:00 UTC (Lise) and 14:00 UTC (Jonathan). >>> We will update relevant Wiki pages in due course, >>> >>> Grace >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 1 18:00:29 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 20:00:29 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <12affd2356a94ea6887843f8f99e3b20@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <27569361.299.1430472632280.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <12affd2356a94ea6887843f8f99e3b20@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton Thank you for reply During the commenting period and untill we receive the formal proposal from naming community ,we should not take i any position with regard to the outside world ( outside from ICG) .However, should CRISP and / or IETF send us their views on the draft and its implication, we could internally examine , discuss those views. Pls kindly consider that we are not acting on behalf of any OC and we should not intervene in informal or formal negotiations between RIREs ,Parameter& Protocol on their existing MoU or SLA since this is outside of our mandarte . We should be very very careful on our actions Regards Kavouss 2015-05-01 16:38 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller : > > > > > I do not belieive that we ICG as a collegial body have been given any > mandate to take any action in this regard unless OCs referred the complaint > in question to us within the process of IANA transition process. > > > > MM: Are you saying that if we get a formal request from the CRISP team > and/or the IANAPlan chairs to make this query that you will approve it? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 1 18:05:03 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 20:05:03 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Release of first draft ICANN-RIR SLA (per CRISP proposal) In-Reply-To: <0DDF0DCD-A4B9-482D-AD76-0A2A7CBE3A6E@apnic.net> References: <10080147.334.1430480884457.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <0DDF0DCD-A4B9-482D-AD76-0A2A7CBE3A6E@apnic.net> Message-ID: Dear Paul, Thank you very much. I think we could only take NOTE of the document without any action until we receive formal proposal from Naming Community as we do not have any formal document in hand. NMoreover, ICG has no mandate to intervene between CRISP and ICANN since it is operational functions to which the EXISTING PROCEDURE appliy untill ICG review the formal proposal from Naming Community. Regards Kavouss Regards 2015-05-01 14:58 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson : > Dear ICG Colleagues, > > The first draft of the proposed SLA between ICANN and the RIRs (as > specified by the CRISP proposal) has now been released, here: > > > https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services > > Please do take note of the cover note at that URL, which explains that the > SLA development has involved NO discussions or negotiation with ICANN or > other parties, to date; rather it is intended as a faithful representation > of the CRISP proposal, and draws also from the existing NTIA-ICANN contract > (all of which is footnoted in detail throughout the document). > > To quote: > > > A first draft of the SLA has been produced and available at > http://www.nro.net/sla. The content of this draft is NOT the result of > negotiations with ICANN or any other parties, and it has not yet been > reviewed by the CRISP team. > > The RIRs do of course expect and encourage a full and open discussion of > this document; and they will themselves publish their own commentary on the > draft, in the near future. > > Thanks, > > Paul. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 1 19:33:58 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 21:33:58 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Release of first draft ICANN-RIR SLA (per CRISP proposal) In-Reply-To: References: <10080147.334.1430480884457.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <0DDF0DCD-A4B9-482D-AD76-0A2A7CBE3A6E@apnic.net> Message-ID: Dear Paul, Once again thank you very much sharing this document with us even though it is available on website and any one including ICG members as individual have had access to this document I raed the covering note and I quote relevant part of that as follows: Quote *" Call for Comments for a Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services* *NRO – PUBLIC CONSULTATION* *CALL FOR COMMENTS FOR A DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT (SLA) FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES.* *.A first draft of the SLA has been produced and available at * *http://www.nro.net/sla* *. The content of this draft is NOT the result of negotiations with ICANN or any other parties, and it has not yet been reviewed by the CRISP team."* Unquote My Questiobn is that Why a DARFT which is * NOT the result of negotiations with ICANN or any other parties, and it has not yet been reviewed by the CRISP team. has been sent to ICG unless it is FOR INFORMATION ONLY* In another paragraph it is said Quote *"All interested parties are now encouraged to review and comment on this first-draft proposal; including members of the RIRs, ICANN, and their communities; members of the CRISP Team and the ICG; and any other organisations and individuals" * *Unquote .* *Why ICG is included among other entities to review and comment on a draft which *is * NOT the result of negotiations with ICANN or any other parties, and it has not yet been reviewed by the CRISP team. unless it is FOR INFORMATION ONLY* it has also been indicated that Quote *" It is written in such a way so that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal"* *Unquote* *" The draft SLA has been developed by a team of legal experts from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included in the **Internet number community proposal* * and is based on the already existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. It is written in such a way so that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal." * Unqoute I am sorry to say that such document with its existing status can not be considered as*a *way so that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, due to the fact that ICG has even not yet completed its evaluatiobn of your ( CRISP ) nor the intitial proposal of Parameters & Protocol Community and has not yet received any thing from Naaming Community thus it would be inappropriate to look at that informal output which has just been put for public comments As far as ICG is concerned , we unfortunately as a collegial body are not in a position to take any action, what so ever, on a darft which even has not been coordinated within CRISP nor neotiated with ICANN . Moreover ,the text in the covering part indicated that *.* Quote *"The draft includes legally important provisions, such as those that regulate the five RIRs acting together and being responsible collectively before ICANN. It includes background and definitions.* *This draft SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of each article according to the Internet number community proposal principles or the NTIA IANA agreement." * Unquote I am not sure whether at the later stage, ICG could be involved in procedure governing internal coordination between five RIRs so as to go down to the path of internal arrangements between RIRs e In conclusion , as I did indicate before thank you again for sharing this non coordinated darft with ICG individula members FOR INFORMATION PRURPOSES REGARDS Kavouss 2015-05-01 20:05 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Dear Paul, > Thank you very much. > I think we could only take NOTE of the document without any action until > we receive formal proposal from Naming Community as we do not have any > formal document in hand. > NMoreover, ICG has no mandate to intervene between CRISP and ICANN since > it is operational functions to which the EXISTING PROCEDURE appliy untill > ICG review the formal proposal from Naming Community. > Regards > Kavouss > Regards > > > 2015-05-01 14:58 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson : > >> Dear ICG Colleagues, >> >> The first draft of the proposed SLA between ICANN and the RIRs (as >> specified by the CRISP proposal) has now been released, here: >> >> >> https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services >> >> Please do take note of the cover note at that URL, which explains that >> the SLA development has involved NO discussions or negotiation with ICANN >> or other parties, to date; rather it is intended as a faithful >> representation of the CRISP proposal, and draws also from the existing >> NTIA-ICANN contract (all of which is footnoted in detail throughout the >> document). >> >> To quote: >> >> > A first draft of the SLA has been produced and available at >> http://www.nro.net/sla. The content of this draft is NOT the result of >> negotiations with ICANN or any other parties, and it has not yet been >> reviewed by the CRISP team. >> >> The RIRs do of course expect and encourage a full and open discussion of >> this document; and they will themselves publish their own commentary on the >> draft, in the near future. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul. >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Fri May 1 22:13:18 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 23:13:18 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> References: <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <20150501221317.GB4269@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Fri, 01 May 2015, Patrik Fältström wrote: > Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about > this and as co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out > publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs > define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation. > > If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the > process defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to > defend whatever ICG will deliver to NTIA. > > So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a > co-chair of ICG and not only as an individual participating. > > What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff > might not understand that they MUST participate in the OC > processes because normally they are forbidden to participate in > the PDPs running in the various OCs. I would support a message from the ICG reminding everybody that they are expected to follow the open processes, but I would want such a message to avoid any reference to rumours or allegations of wrongdoing. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jen at icgsec.asia Sat May 2 00:36:18 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 20:36:18 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG social media accounts Message-ID: <02a001d08470$029fb910$07df2b30$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Per the ICG chairs' request, the Secretariat has created two social media accounts for the ICG on Twitter and Facebook, the links are below: Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship The social media accounts will be used to cross-post the ICG's public announcements, beginning with the next public announcement. The Secretariat will direct all public comments to the ICG Forum icg-forum at ianacg.org and general enquiries to question-icg at ianacg.org . Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Sat May 2 06:50:26 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 16:50:26 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <20150501221317.GB4269@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <20150501221317.GB4269@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: +1 On 2 May 2015, at 8:13, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Fri, 01 May 2015, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and >> as co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) >> that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up >> multistakeholder participation. >> >> If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process >> defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend >> whatever ICG will deliver to NTIA. >> >> So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of >> ICG and not only as an individual participating. >> >> What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might >> not understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because >> normally they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the >> various OCs. > > I would support a message from the ICG reminding everybody that they > are expected to follow the open processes, but I would want such a > message to avoid any reference to rumours or allegations of > wrongdoing. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sat May 2 08:26:08 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 10:26:08 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <20150501221317.GB4269@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in><2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in><567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in><4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <20150501221317.GB4269@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: This is a good idea. It should be directed to the 3 communities providing proposals with the request to share it with their members and participants. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alan Barrett Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 12:13 AM To: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting On Fri, 01 May 2015, Patrik Fältström wrote: > Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and as > co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) that > _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up > multistakeholder participation. > > If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process > defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend whatever > ICG will deliver to NTIA. > > So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of ICG > and not only as an individual participating. > > What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might not > understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because normally > they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the various OCs. I would support a message from the ICG reminding everybody that they are expected to follow the open processes, but I would want such a message to avoid any reference to rumours or allegations of wrongdoing. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From glaser at cgi.br Sat May 2 08:27:29 2015 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 05:27:29 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in><2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in><567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in><4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <20150501221317.GB4269@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <55448A71.2090905@cgi.br> +1 ============================== On 02/05/15 05:26, WUKnoben wrote: > This is a good idea. It should be directed to the 3 communities > providing proposals with the request to share it with their members > and participants. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alan Barrett > Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 12:13 AM > To: ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > On Fri, 01 May 2015, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> Let me state explicitly that Alissa and I have talked about this and >> as co-chair of ICG I feel I am required to point out publicly (again) >> that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up >> multistakeholder participation. >> >> If someone, specifically ICANN I must say, is not using the process >> defined by the OC, I feel I will later on have issues to defend >> whatever ICG will deliver to NTIA. >> >> So when I say I support a message from us, I do this as a co-chair of >> ICG and not only as an individual participating. >> >> What I wrote earlier on was a clarification that ICANN staff might >> not understand that they MUST participate in the OC processes because >> normally they are forbidden to participate in the PDPs running in the >> various OCs. > > I would support a message from the ICG reminding everybody that > they are expected to follow the open processes, but I would want > such a message to avoid any reference to rumours or allegations of > wrongdoing. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 2 10:56:47 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 12:56:47 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <884453aa37ac42d8b473db6934246b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> <44A34526-6D50-4E65-96EF-315BF27E6573@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAF040@ACCAN01.accan.local> <884453aa37ac42d8b473db6934246b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8D39FF90-1BCF-41A4-9E96-4887956B0426@gmail.com> Milton Tks again If someone insist to send that nite It should indicate that it reflects the views of chair and SOME ICG members but NOT the ICG as a whole since we did not debate it at alll . Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 1 May 2015, at 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Narelle: > > I like your proposed query. I think it actually supplements what Alissa and Patrik were proposing and I believe we should do both. > > Patrik said (with apparent agreement of Alissa) that they are "required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation." > > This is a very general reminder/admonition that is not directed at any particular party. > > Your query goes to a very specific party - the ICANN board - and addresses specific concerns that have arisen in the past week. Hence, I would support doing both. For convenience of others I reproduce it here with one proposed edit of mine: > >> "The ICG has become aware of claims that critical pieces of the IETF >> and RIR proposals for IANA operation post NTIA stewardship are being >> contested by ICANN's legal counsel. The ICG therefore seeks >> clarification of these reports, and specifically to the extent which they >> are acting under instructions of ICANN." > > I deleted the phrase "through negotiation of the terms of the existing SLA and proposed models." By doing so, I think we can avoid quibbling over whether what has happened constitutes "negotiation" and focus on the more relevant issue, which is whether ICANN legal or someone else is pushing back against the proposal outside of the OC process. > > --MM > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mbashir at mbash.net Sat May 2 11:32:25 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 14:32:25 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <8D39FF90-1BCF-41A4-9E96-4887956B0426@gmail.com> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> <44A34526-6D50-4E65-96EF-315BF27E6573@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAF040@ACCAN01.accan.local> <884453aa37ac42d8b473db6934246b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <8D39FF90-1BCF-41A4-9E96-4887956B0426@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A5CB92C-2D0F-4F8A-81A5-0DF897F0B513@mbash.net> The issue of public statement regarding OC contracting negotiations with ICANN has not been discussed collectively between the chairs, that being said I share Alissa/Partik concerns of the actions of ICANN legal staff attempt to change the community consensus outcome and wither these actions are based on a board/management direction or the staff were are acting solely without instructions. The issue is already public now, an ICG of public statement on the process openness is good. But I think Narelle approach is much better, the ICG can officially communicate these concerns to ICANN Board/Management through the chair and request an official explanation. Previously ICG stressed the importance of the process transparency and openness, as a result we have got ICANN board assurance regarding the proposal submission when this process was Unclear. ICG-ICANN Board/Management communication is expected to enable us to a clear response on what happened and ICANN position as well . Kind Regards, Mohamed > On 2 May 2015, at 13:56, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Milton > Tks again > If someone insist to send that nite > It should indicate that it reflects the views of chair and SOME ICG members but NOT the ICG as a whole since we did not debate it at alll . > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 1 May 2015, at 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Narelle: >> >> I like your proposed query. I think it actually supplements what Alissa and Patrik were proposing and I believe we should do both. >> >> Patrik said (with apparent agreement of Alissa) that they are "required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation." >> >> This is a very general reminder/admonition that is not directed at any particular party. >> >> Your query goes to a very specific party - the ICANN board - and addresses specific concerns that have arisen in the past week. Hence, I would support doing both. For convenience of others I reproduce it here with one proposed edit of mine: >> >>> "The ICG has become aware of claims that critical pieces of the IETF >>> and RIR proposals for IANA operation post NTIA stewardship are being >>> contested by ICANN's legal counsel. The ICG therefore seeks >>> clarification of these reports, and specifically to the extent which they >>> are acting under instructions of ICANN." >> >> I deleted the phrase "through negotiation of the terms of the existing SLA and proposed models." By doing so, I think we can avoid quibbling over whether what has happened constitutes "negotiation" and focus on the more relevant issue, which is whether ICANN legal or someone else is pushing back against the proposal outside of the OC process. >> >> --MM >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 2 11:53:09 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 13:53:09 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <0A5CB92C-2D0F-4F8A-81A5-0DF897F0B513@mbash.net> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAEFAD@ACCAN01.accan.local> <44A34526-6D50-4E65-96EF-315BF27E6573@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FC7FAF040@ACCAN01.accan.local> <884453aa37ac42d8b473db6934246b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <8D39FF90-1BCF-41A4-9E96-4887956B0426@gmail.com> <0A5CB92C-2D0F-4F8A-81A5-0DF897F0B513@mbash.net> Message-ID: <3ADB09C8-02A3-44F0-AECA-EF14964D82BE@gmail.com> Dear El Bashir Dear Patrik Daar Alissa While I note that apparently there is a dispute between ICAAN staff ( I have no official information describing the situation from both sides of the dispute rather a unilateral narrative statement from one side),my clear question to the chair is under what provision if ICG charter we are pushed to intervene as arbiter, judge, reviewer, mediator between ICANN staff functioning under the ICANN Board and certain operational communities for an operational dispute? We should not interfere with internal negotiation between these entities. It is outside our mandate. Once again I strongly oppose for such an intervention. If some people pushed by OCs to use the ICG authorities to do so they could act individually or jointly without using the ICG brand Pls kindly do not involve the entire ICG in this affair Best regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone > On 2 May 2015, at 13:32, Mohamed El Bashir wrote: > > The issue of public statement regarding OC contracting negotiations with ICANN has not been discussed collectively between the chairs, that being said I share Alissa/Partik concerns of the actions of ICANN legal staff attempt to change the community consensus outcome and wither these actions are based on a board/management direction or the staff were are acting solely without instructions. > > The issue is already public now, an ICG of public statement on the process openness is good. But I think Narelle approach is much better, the ICG can officially communicate these concerns to ICANN Board/Management through the chair and request an official explanation. > > Previously ICG stressed the importance of the process transparency and openness, as a result we have got ICANN board assurance regarding the proposal submission when this process was Unclear. > > ICG-ICANN Board/Management communication is expected to enable us to a clear response on what happened and ICANN position as well . > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > >> On 2 May 2015, at 13:56, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Milton >> Tks again >> If someone insist to send that nite >> It should indicate that it reflects the views of chair and SOME ICG members but NOT the ICG as a whole since we did not debate it at alll . >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 1 May 2015, at 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Narelle: >>> >>> I like your proposed query. I think it actually supplements what Alissa and Patrik were proposing and I believe we should do both. >>> >>> Patrik said (with apparent agreement of Alissa) that they are "required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation." >>> >>> This is a very general reminder/admonition that is not directed at any particular party. >>> >>> Your query goes to a very specific party - the ICANN board - and addresses specific concerns that have arisen in the past week. Hence, I would support doing both. For convenience of others I reproduce it here with one proposed edit of mine: >>> >>>> "The ICG has become aware of claims that critical pieces of the IETF >>>> and RIR proposals for IANA operation post NTIA stewardship are being >>>> contested by ICANN's legal counsel. The ICG therefore seeks >>>> clarification of these reports, and specifically to the extent which they >>>> are acting under instructions of ICANN." >>> >>> I deleted the phrase "through negotiation of the terms of the existing SLA and proposed models." By doing so, I think we can avoid quibbling over whether what has happened constitutes "negotiation" and focus on the more relevant issue, which is whether ICANN legal or someone else is pushing back against the proposal outside of the OC process. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 2 12:43:03 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 14:43:03 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG social media accounts In-Reply-To: <02a001d08470$029fb910$07df2b30$@icgsec.asia> References: <02a001d08470$029fb910$07df2b30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Dear ICG Chair, I understand that our Mailing list is for ICG only. When and where we discussed that there is a real need to open these accounts. Many issues are internally discussed among us and it could create problems if such internal discussions leaks outside the ICG. May you xlarify the matter Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 2:36 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Chung : > Dear All, > > > > Per the ICG chairs’ request, the Secretariat has created two social media > accounts for the ICG on Twitter and Facebook, the links are below: > > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship > > > > The social media accounts will be used to cross-post the ICG’s public > announcements, beginning with the next public announcement. The > Secretariat will direct all public comments to the ICG Forum > icg-forum at ianacg.org and general enquiries to question-icg at ianacg.org. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Sat May 2 14:12:38 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 15:12:38 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <20150501221317.GB4269@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> <4DD3CF6C-36F3-44DC-858E-9A99F2F3E338@frobbit.se> <20150501221317.GB4269@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: > I would support a message from the ICG reminding everybody that they are expected to follow the open processes, but I would want such a message to avoid any reference to rumours or allegations of wrongdoing. I agree with Alan on this. I would also caution people to not get too worked up on various impressions about what is going on. Rather, stick to the facts as communicated by the relevant parties. For instance, in addition to the original text from Andrew, I also posted an important note from Theresa in the thread "[Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition”. I am not saying that the IETF is happy in current state of affairs*, but there’s a world of difference between legal issues and an attempt to synchronise every IANA-related change to the same time vs. an attempt to change the results of community processes behind the scenes. Jari *) We definitely would like move forward, and we of course believe our existing MoU provides certain processes. But, if it were any other year than the transition year, I’d wager that no one would have lift an eyebrow in our SLA additions. Or the RIRs. And not doing every piece of a big project at the same time is of course project management 101. Particularly when the IETF and RIR efforts are in my mind housekeeping that we could have done at any time, not fundamental changes to the setup. -------------- 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 jari.arkko at piuha.net Sat May 2 16:08:31 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 17:08:31 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG social media accounts In-Reply-To: References: <02a001d08470$029fb910$07df2b30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Kavouss: The e-mail said that these accounts are used for making public announcements on social media as well as all the other places we are making already. I think that’s great and completely appropriate. Thank you Jennifer and chairs for setting this up. 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 kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 2 16:12:15 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 18:12:15 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG social media accounts In-Reply-To: References: <02a001d08470$029fb910$07df2b30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Jari, YES ,but only and only public announcment of ICG consensus made decision and not any thing else. You may know the role of social media is to interprete the message in the way that they wish to motivate. We must act in accordance with our CHARTER Regards Kavouss ... 2015-05-02 18:08 GMT+02:00 Jari Arkko : > Kavouss: The e-mail said that these accounts are used for making public > announcements on social media as well as all the other places we are making > already. I think that’s great and completely appropriate. Thank you > Jennifer and chairs for setting this up. > > Jari > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat May 2 16:18:09 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 17:18:09 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <821e622792d043dc9851050509ef17ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <821e622792d043dc9851050509ef17ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Colleagues I have been on travel and have not been able to follow these discussions as closely as I would like. One thought which would perhaps address the reluctance of some members related to the statements might be for an ICG statement to be neutral as to gossip and allegations as proposed, but to be issued specifically in response to community statements raising concerns about a constraint on openness and transparency related to proposals process. In this way we are responding to OC concerns raised to us related to process transparency and openness which are clearly part of our mandate... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Kavouss, > > The problem we are trying to address is that negotiations and claims are being made out of public view, in an attempt to change the operational community proposals behind the scenes. ICG has the responsibility to uphold the openness and transparency of the process. Alissa proposed, and Patrik and I supported, a simple statement that discussions and negotiations about the merits of the proposals should be out in the open. > > It appears to me that you are unfamiliar with the problems that led to Alissa’s proposal. Before you suggest “no action” I suggest you spend some time reviewing slides 18-20 of the presentation made by members of the CRISP team at this link: (no need to read the whole thing) https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf > > If you wish to intervene heavily in this discussion it is essential that you read that material first. Once you have read that, please tell me if you still think “no action” is needed. > > --MM > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 2 17:06:27 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 19:06:27 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <3DB168C4-559A-4CCD-8922-9AEC92584DE0@gmail.com> Dear James Alissa and those supporting her could jointly or individually write to Steve or Fadi asking formal clarification on the matter but not in the Name of ICG which I strongly believe that should not intervene in this negotiation. We must be aware that We are neither a judge nor arbiter. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone > On 30 Apr 2015, at 19:17, James M. Bladel wrote: > > Agree, with Milton, and disagree with Kavous¹ description of the intent of > Alissa¹s actions. > > ICANN Staff (possibly without approval or awareness of their Board?) is > intervening in the proposal process in an non-transparent and un-deinfed > manner. It is perfectly appropriate for the ICG to respond as Alissa has > indicated, and in fact it is our responsibility to do so. > > Please note that her statement reinforces the process of submitting > feedback, without regard to the substance of those discussions. > > Thanks‹ > > J. > > > >> On 4/30/15, 11:45 , "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> >> My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply >> object, one must have viable reasons to object. >> In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his >> resistance. >> >> I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more >> than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes >> account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, >> others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, >> Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me to >> take your objections seriously. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM >>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting >>> >>> Hi Kavouss, >>> >>> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about >>> contracts/agreements is noted. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alussa >>>> It seems that >>>> ICG becoming the I international Court of Justice. >>>> Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs >>>> Pls clarify and this time No Note to be issued until every body >>> agreed >>>> I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus >>>> tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best >>>> regards Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Good statement. I support it as is. >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>>>>> >>>>>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >>>>>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun >>> discussions >>>>>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for >>> in >>>>>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >>>>>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, >>>>>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other >>>>>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions >>> operator. >>>>>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus >>> proposals >>>>>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the >>>>>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of >>> the >>>>>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the >>> same >>>>>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within >>>>>> established community processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton¹s >>>>>> memo raised a question for me: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ³... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very >>>>>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an >>>>>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational >>>>>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn¹t we expect >>> the >>>>>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major >>>>>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an >>>>>> operational community as part of the transition, isn¹t it >>>>>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected >>> operational >>>>>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are >>> going >>>>>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole >>> involved community.² >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of >>>>>>> the >>>>>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out >>> a >>>>>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all >>>>>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions >>>>>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the >>>>>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the >>>>>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with >>>>>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the >>> IANA >>>>>> functions operator? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alissa >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Milton, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up >>>>>>>> process >>>>>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on >>>>>> what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they >>>>>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ³NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA >>>>>> functions would be difficult for them to accept - so the idea that >>>>>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of >>> contract >>>>>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?² >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be >>>>>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I >>>>>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested >>> this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let¹s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to ³split² or >>>>>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years >>>>>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has >>> proposed >>>>>> something similar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it >>> thinks >>>>>> NTIA wants. NTIA¹s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include >>>>>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --MM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On >>>>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and >>> Chat >>>>>> Transcript >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. >>>>>>>>> Attached >>>>>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>>>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>>>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance >>>>>>>>> roll >>>>>> call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any >>>>>> discrepancies: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ICG Members >>>>>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>>>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>>>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>>>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>>>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>>>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>>>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>>>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>>>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>>>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>>>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>>>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liaisons >>>>>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apologies >>>>>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>>>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>>>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>>>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>>>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>>>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>>>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jennifer >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 2 17:08:44 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 19:08:44 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <676B3BE3-ED04-418E-BD6F-4CF7A3AE21E6@gmail.com> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <20828af2590340c39485722331eac5b4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0387B940-E55C-4FAA-B65F-61C07D53B22B@gmail.com> <18e126a965c94c0f898408c1407dfd75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <676B3BE3-ED04-418E-BD6F-4CF7A3AE21E6@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Wu Thanks for your bon office Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Apr 2015, at 16:23, Wu Kuo wrote: > > Thanks for sharing your information. I just back from a trip, and arrived home few minutes ago. I will read it ASAP. > > But I have to say, ICANN has MOU with NRO and IETF for years as you know. This is not a secret at all. Again, I have to read the information you gave, and get back to ICG ASAP. > > Thanks. > > Kuo Wu > > 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > >> Milton L Mueller 於 2015年4月28日 22:17 寫道： >> >> >> Kuo-wei >> Here is Alissa's original message. >> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000236.html >> >> You might also be interested in my recent blog post on the topic >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/ >> >> It is not about whether ICANN can "stop ICG's action" it is about whether it can unilaterally dictate changes in the operational community proposals, effectively circumventing the ICG process. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> I didn't read the statement from Alissa yet. I will response after I read >>> it. And ICG is an independent group, unless ICG want to get comment >>> what ICANN board. I don't see what we can stop ICG's action, isn't it? > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Sat May 2 17:32:51 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo) Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 01:32:51 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <20828af2590340c39485722331eac5b4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0387B940-E55C-4FAA-B65F-61C07D53B22B@gmail.com> <18e126a965c94c0f898408c1407dfd75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <676B3BE3-ED04-418E-BD6F-4CF7A3AE21E6@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Kavouss, As IETF and NRO making their update information recently, that is what happened as Milton questioned. As I checked with board and ICANN staff, ICANN has no intention to change the proposals from IETF and CRISP, and strongly support ICG working on its proposal based on IETF and CRISP delivered (also the potential proposal from CWG) again. I have nothing more to add than the information from IETF and NRO. Kuo Wu 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > Kavouss Arasteh 於 2015年5月3日 01:08 寫道： > > Dear Wu > Thanks for your bon office > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 28 Apr 2015, at 16:23, Wu Kuo wrote: >> >> Thanks for sharing your information. I just back from a trip, and arrived home few minutes ago. I will read it ASAP. >> >> But I have to say, ICANN has MOU with NRO and IETF for years as you know. This is not a secret at all. Again, I have to read the information you gave, and get back to ICG ASAP. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >> 從我的 iPhone 傳送 >> >>> Milton L Mueller 於 2015年4月28日 22:17 寫道： >>> >>> >>> Kuo-wei >>> Here is Alissa's original message. >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000236.html >>> >>> You might also be interested in my recent blog post on the topic >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/ >>> >>> It is not about whether ICANN can "stop ICG's action" it is about whether it can unilaterally dictate changes in the operational community proposals, effectively circumventing the ICG process. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> I didn't read the statement from Alissa yet. I will response after I read >>>> it. And ICG is an independent group, unless ICG want to get comment >>>> what ICANN board. I don't see what we can stop ICG's action, isn't it? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 2 18:29:06 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 20:29:06 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <20828af2590340c39485722331eac5b4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0387B940-E55C-4FAA-B65F-61C07D53B22B@gmail.com> <18e126a965c94c0f898408c1407dfd75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <676B3BE3-ED04-418E-BD6F-4CF7A3AE21E6@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Wu, Then what the problem that since a week every body making panic that ICANN STAFF BREAKING THE RULES. Please ,as ICANN Liaison to ICG clarify the matter to every body so as no more panic is made. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-02 19:32 GMT+02:00 Wu Kuo : > Dear Kavouss, > > As IETF and NRO making their update information recently, that is what > happened as Milton questioned. As I checked with board and ICANN staff, > ICANN has no intention to change the proposals from IETF and CRISP, and > strongly support ICG working on its proposal based on IETF and CRISP > delivered (also the potential proposal from CWG) again. I have nothing more > to add than the information from IETF and NRO. > > Kuo Wu > > 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > > > Kavouss Arasteh 於 2015年5月3日 01:08 寫道： > > > > Dear Wu > > Thanks for your bon office > > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 28 Apr 2015, at 16:23, Wu Kuo wrote: > >> > >> Thanks for sharing your information. I just back from a trip, and > arrived home few minutes ago. I will read it ASAP. > >> > >> But I have to say, ICANN has MOU with NRO and IETF for years as you > know. This is not a secret at all. Again, I have to read the information > you gave, and get back to ICG ASAP. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Kuo Wu > >> > >> 從我的 iPhone 傳送 > >> > >>> Milton L Mueller 於 2015年4月28日 22:17 寫道： > >>> > >>> > >>> Kuo-wei > >>> Here is Alissa's original message. > >>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-April/000236.html > >>> > >>> You might also be interested in my recent blog post on the topic > >>> > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/ > >>> > >>> It is not about whether ICANN can "stop ICG's action" it is about > whether it can unilaterally dictate changes in the operational community > proposals, effectively circumventing the ICG process. > >>> > >>> --MM > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> I didn't read the statement from Alissa yet. I will response after I > read > >>>> it. And ICG is an independent group, unless ICG want to get comment > >>>> what ICANN board. I don't see what we can stop ICG's action, isn't it? > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Sat May 2 21:53:59 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 21:53:59 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <821e622792d043dc9851050509ef17ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <766570405ef84827805739a97cfe9986@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Joe and fellow ICG members: I have been on travel and have not been able to follow these discussions as closely as I would like. One thought which would perhaps address the reluctance of some members related to the statements might be for an ICG statement to be neutral as to gossip and allegations as proposed, but to be issued specifically in response to community statements raising concerns about a constraint on openness and transparency related to proposals process. MM: Of course I agree that an ICG statement should be issued specifically in response to community statements, but I am not aware of any “gossip” about this, and I think it is demeaning of the seriousness of the issue to talk in that way. We have two very specific statements in front of us: 1. The CRISP team report made at the ARIN meeting. This is not gossip, this is a fairly detailed report on discussions that have taken place between members of the CRISP team and ICANN legal, the comments were made in a public forum with the presentation slides available for everyone to see. 2. The letter from the 3 IETF people posted on the IANA Plan list. This is not gossip either and in fact at least one of the writers of that letter is here in the ICG. Note that while the second issue has provoked a response from ICANN (because, and ONLY because, people got “worked up” and made an issue of it - Jari), there has been no response to the more serious concerns expressed by a member of the CRISP team. Further, one could reasonably contend that the ICANN response to the IETF/RFC 2860 SLA issue was inadequate, as it failed to cite specifically which part of the NTIA IANA functions contract was the alleged impediment to a renewal of their annual SLA. There has been an effort to present this problem as a matter unrelated to the transition, a simple snag in the IETF-IANA annual supplemental agreement. That could be true, and it would indeed be reassuring if it was. But there are many reasons to doubt that story, or at least to reserve judgment about it. If ICANN is unwilling to sign off on an agreement that incorporates elements of the IANAPLAN working group output now, and is unable to tell us exactly why, it is unclear to many people whether they will do so later. And if we don’t call out this issue now and get it clarified, we may find it more difficult to resolve problems later. So a general call for transparency, and a more specific query directed to ICANN, seem perfectly justified to me. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Sat May 2 21:57:35 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 21:57:35 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <3DB168C4-559A-4CCD-8922-9AEC92584DE0@gmail.com> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> <3DB168C4-559A-4CCD-8922-9AEC92584DE0@gmail.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > which I strongly believe that should not intervene in this negotiation. This is like saying we should not intervene in the process of combining the OC proposals into a final package for the NTIA. It completely contradicts our charter. It is our job to take the proposals we get from the open process, assess them and put them together > We must be aware that We are neither a judge nor arbiter. We are not judging or arbitrating anything. We are issuing a statement that reactions to the proposals should be open and transparent and the proposals should not be modified via backroom deals. That is a general statement that conforms to what our charter already says. From jbladel at godaddy.com Sat May 2 23:48:59 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 23:48:59 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <567fde6367f244edb32d2f3ce9af4b0b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5C235942-C7FD-4932-9084-358A57BF7C63@cooperw.in> <3DB168C4-559A-4CCD-8922-9AEC92584DE0@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <315256F0-D8DC-4616-A98C-BA4C0BF5B3C9@godaddy.com> Agree. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. > On May 2, 2015, at 16:57, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> which I strongly believe that should not intervene in this negotiation. > > This is like saying we should not intervene in the process of combining the OC proposals into a final package for the NTIA. It completely contradicts our charter. It is our job to take the proposals we get from the open process, assess them and put them together > >> We must be aware that We are neither a judge nor arbiter. > > We are not judging or arbitrating anything. We are issuing a statement that reactions to the proposals should be open and transparent and the proposals should not be modified via backroom deals. That is a general statement that conforms to what our charter already says. > From kdrazek at verisign.com Sun May 3 00:01:09 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 00:01:09 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <766570405ef84827805739a97cfe9986@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <821e622792d043dc9851050509ef17ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> , <766570405ef84827805739a97cfe9986@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree with Milton. Keith On May 2, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Joe and fellow ICG members: I have been on travel and have not been able to follow these discussions as closely as I would like. One thought which would perhaps address the reluctance of some members related to the statements might be for an ICG statement to be neutral as to gossip and allegations as proposed, but to be issued specifically in response to community statements raising concerns about a constraint on openness and transparency related to proposals process. MM: Of course I agree that an ICG statement should be issued specifically in response to community statements, but I am not aware of any “gossip” about this, and I think it is demeaning of the seriousness of the issue to talk in that way. We have two very specific statements in front of us: 1. The CRISP team report made at the ARIN meeting. This is not gossip, this is a fairly detailed report on discussions that have taken place between members of the CRISP team and ICANN legal, the comments were made in a public forum with the presentation slides available for everyone to see. 2. The letter from the 3 IETF people posted on the IANA Plan list. This is not gossip either and in fact at least one of the writers of that letter is here in the ICG. Note that while the second issue has provoked a response from ICANN (because, and ONLY because, people got “worked up” and made an issue of it - Jari), there has been no response to the more serious concerns expressed by a member of the CRISP team. Further, one could reasonably contend that the ICANN response to the IETF/RFC 2860 SLA issue was inadequate, as it failed to cite specifically which part of the NTIA IANA functions contract was the alleged impediment to a renewal of their annual SLA. There has been an effort to present this problem as a matter unrelated to the transition, a simple snag in the IETF-IANA annual supplemental agreement. That could be true, and it would indeed be reassuring if it was. But there are many reasons to doubt that story, or at least to reserve judgment about it. If ICANN is unwilling to sign off on an agreement that incorporates elements of the IANAPLAN working group output now, and is unable to tell us exactly why, it is unclear to many people whether they will do so later. And if we don’t call out this issue now and get it clarified, we may find it more difficult to resolve problems later. So a general call for transparency, and a more specific query directed to ICANN, seem perfectly justified to me. --MM _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sun May 3 07:45:30 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 09:45:30 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG social media accounts In-Reply-To: References: <02a001d08470$029fb910$07df2b30$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: On 2 May 2015, at 14:43, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > I understand that our Mailing list is for ICG only. > When and where we discussed that there is a real need to open these accounts. > Many issues are internally discussed among us and it could create problems if such internal discussions leaks outside the ICG. As we all know, everything on this mailing list is visible publicly in the mailing list archives that since the new secretariat took over can be found here: Link can be found on our web page. So there is nothing that "can leak" as everything is public anyway. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun May 3 08:48:26 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 10:48:26 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <821e622792d043dc9851050509ef17ae@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <766570405ef84827805739a97cfe9986@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton What you are describing is right The problem is the modality to convey the message to ICANN. i SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING any or all OCs which have identified the problem writes / write to ICG chair and ICG chair sends that / those statements ,in a message to ICANN AS FOLLOWS " I( ICG CHAIR) has been informed that ......copy attached . You are kindly requested to consider the case and take necessary actions in order that ......be fully implemented and provide necessary reply to ( OC / OCs ) and the chair of the ICG. Unopn receipt of your reply I ( ICG CHAIR ) will inform the ICG members in order to review the case and take necessary actions , as appropriate Milton Pls note kindly that we just have difference in the approach and not in substance. I am confident that you can draft a message to be sent to the ICANN ,ON BEHALF OF THE icg chair ( only the chair ) attached to it the copy of the complaints from OC or OCs Regards Kavouss 2015-05-03 2:01 GMT+02:00 Drazek, Keith : > I agree with Milton. > > Keith > > On May 2, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Joe and fellow ICG members: > > > > I have been on travel and have not been able to follow these discussions > as closely as I would like. One thought which would perhaps address the > reluctance of some members related to the statements might be for an ICG > statement to be neutral as to gossip and allegations as proposed, but to be > issued specifically in response to community statements raising concerns > about a constraint on openness and transparency related to proposals > process. > > > > MM: > > > > Of course I agree that an ICG statement should be issued specifically in > response to community statements, but I am not aware of any “gossip” about > this, and I think it is demeaning of the seriousness of the issue to talk > in that way. We have two very specific statements in front of us: > > > > 1. The CRISP team report made at the ARIN meeting. This is not > gossip, this is a fairly detailed report on discussions that have taken > place between members of the CRISP team and ICANN legal, the comments were > made in a public forum with the presentation slides available for everyone > to see. > > 2. The letter from the 3 IETF people posted on the IANA Plan list. > This is not gossip either and in fact at least one of the writers of that > letter is here in the ICG. > > > > Note that while the second issue has provoked a response from ICANN > (because, and ONLY because, people got “worked up” and made an issue of it > - Jari), there has been no response to the more serious concerns expressed > by a member of the CRISP team. > > > > Further, one could reasonably contend that the ICANN response to the > IETF/RFC 2860 SLA issue was inadequate, as it failed to cite specifically > which part of the NTIA IANA functions contract was the alleged impediment > to a renewal of their annual SLA. There has been an effort to present this > problem as a matter unrelated to the transition, a simple snag in the > IETF-IANA annual supplemental agreement. That could be true, and it would > indeed be reassuring if it was. But there are many reasons to doubt that > story, or at least to reserve judgment about it. If ICANN is unwilling to > sign off on an agreement that incorporates elements of the IANAPLAN working > group output now, and is unable to tell us exactly why, it is unclear to > many people whether they will do so later. And if we don’t call out this > issue now and get it clarified, we may find it more difficult to resolve > problems later. > > > > So a general call for transparency, and a more specific query directed to > ICANN, seem perfectly justified to me. > > > > --MM > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun May 3 11:34:22 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 12:34:22 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <80E60023-5995-4F33-B4EB-C0B538DD506A@oracle.com> A clarification for those more nuanced in this topic. Is the issue ICANN staff messaging or a discord across ICANN messaging across staff? I gather part of this issue arises from a disconnect between formal positions previously espoused and current actions which call them into question and a need for a public reaffirmation of the former and a cessation of actions that undermine them... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Since there seems to be good support for us writing a statement as outlined below, I’ve written a draft below. I incorporated the suggestions from Jean-Jacques. Please comment. > > — > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus proposals through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal development process. At a time when all of the communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within established community processes. > > --- > >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo raised a question for me: >> >> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” >> >> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator? >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: >>> >>> Milton, >>> >>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions." >>> >>> Lynn >>> >>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: >>>> >>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” >>>> >>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. >>>> >>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something similar. >>>> >>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions. >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM >>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>> >>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Jennifer >>>> >>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM >>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' >>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: >>>> >>>> ICG Members >>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) >>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) >>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) >>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) >>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) >>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) >>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) >>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) >>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) >>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) >>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) >>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) >>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) >>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) >>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) >>>> Russ Housley (IAB) >>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) >>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) >>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) >>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) >>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) >>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) >>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) >>>> >>>> Liaisons >>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) >>>> >>>> Apologies >>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) >>>> James Bladel (GNSO) >>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) >>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) >>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) >>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) >>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) >>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Jennifer >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun May 3 13:25:17 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 15:25:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <80E60023-5995-4F33-B4EB-C0B538DD506A@oracle.com> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <2DEE91C1-E2ED-4AF3-8402-98EBC736DDFE@cooperw.in> <80E60023-5995-4F33-B4EB-C0B538DD506A@oracle.com> Message-ID: Dear Joe We really do not know what is the matter. People became emmotional on something that may exist at all. We need to first hear from the Board Liasion to ICG and then possibly act as I suggested not more not less. Reagrds Kavouss 2015-05-03 13:34 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : > A clarification for those more nuanced in this topic. Is the issue ICANN > staff messaging or a discord across ICANN messaging across staff? I gather > part of this issue arises from a disconnect between formal positions > previously espoused and current actions which call them into question and a > need for a public reaffirmation of the former and a cessation of actions > that undermine them... > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > > Since there seems to be good support for us writing a statement as > outlined below, I’ve written a draft below. I incorporated the suggestions > from Jean-Jacques. Please comment. > > > > — > > > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition > proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN > concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community > transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning > of the transition process -- that all interested parties, including ICANN > staff, express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and > transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about > the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or > other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. > Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus proposals through > private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the transition proposal > development process. At a time when all of the communities are focused on > accountability, all parties have the same obligation to carry out > discussions in an open manner within established community processes. > > > > --- > > > >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> > >> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s memo > raised a question for me: > >> > >> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very important > process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an entity that receives > consensus proposals from the operational communities and does not try to > alter them. Shouldn’t we expect the same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is > attempting to make major alterations in the terms of the contractual rights > exercised by an operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it > interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected operational > community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are going on > behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole involved community.” > >> > >> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the > same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a > statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested > parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the > transition proposals openly and transparently within the community > processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles > and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the > communities and the IANA functions operator? > >> > >> Alissa > >> > >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > >>> > >>> Milton, > >>> > >>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process > and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it > thinks NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include > any thing about splitting the IANA functions." > >>> > >>> Lynn > >>> > >>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith: > >>>> > >>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA > functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that > Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of contract > termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?” > >>>> > >>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be > misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I would > like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested this. > >>>> > >>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or > terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years through > various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has proposed something > similar. > >>>> > >>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG has no > business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it thinks NTIA > wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include any thing > about splitting the IANA functions. > >>>> > >>>> --MM > >>>> > >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf > Of Jennifer Chung > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM > >>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat > Transcript > >>>> > >>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email. Attached > please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Jennifer > >>>> > >>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM > >>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' > >>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript > >>>> > >>>> Dear All, > >>>> > >>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll > call (below) for Call 15. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: > >>>> > >>>> ICG Members > >>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > >>>> Paul Wilson (NRO) > >>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > >>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > >>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF) > >>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > >>>> Jari Arkko (IETF) > >>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > >>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC) > >>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > >>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > >>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > >>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB) > >>>> Michael Niebel (GAC) > >>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC) > >>>> Russ Housley (IAB) > >>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC) > >>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > >>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > >>>> Alan Barrett (NRO) > >>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > >>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > >>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > >>>> > >>>> Liaisons > >>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > >>>> > >>>> Apologies > >>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > >>>> James Bladel (GNSO) > >>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO) > >>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > >>>> Manal Ismail (GAC) > >>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > >>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > >>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC) > >>>> > >>>> Best Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jennifer > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 4 04:55:00 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 21:55:00 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. Thoughts? Alissa --- Proposed statement and note: Dear , The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. Thanks, The ICG -- ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon May 4 07:36:09 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 03:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <55472169.7050908@oracle.com> Alissa: I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it either way. Best- Joe On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. > > There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: > > (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. > > (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. > > (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. > > Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. > > (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. > > My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. > > As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. > > It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. > > Thoughts? > > Alissa > > --- > > Proposed statement and note: > > Dear , > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > The ICG > > -- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Mon May 4 08:36:22 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 10:36:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <55472169.7050908@oracle.com> Message-ID: <25906448.268.1430728582023.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> In response to Alissa's latest draft, I suggest we be attentive to the following: - yes, our role should limit itself to calling for transparency, etc. - If Alissa, as our Chair, is to send any message, it must be ONLY to the Chair of the ICANN Board, with copies to whoever else might be interested (ICANN CEO, CWG Chair or whatever). It cannot be our Chair's business to be corresponding with an employee of ICANN, even it that is the CEO. By addressing the Chair of the Board, it makes clear that we expect an answer (a commitment?) which would then speak on behalf of those who hold fiduciary duty within ICANN. To be understood and respected, we must abide by "parallel forms", that is Chair to Chair. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "joseph alhadeff" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 09:36:09 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Alissa: I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it either way. Best- Joe On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. > > There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: > > (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. > > (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. > > (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. > > Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. > > (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. > > My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. > > As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. > > It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. > > Thoughts? > > Alissa > > --- > > Proposed statement and note: > > Dear , > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > The ICG > > -- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon May 4 08:45:29 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 04:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <25906448.268.1430728582023.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <25906448.268.1430728582023.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <554731A9.5080604@oracle.com> Jean-Jacques: I think it needs to be addressed to the Board as a whole and sent to or to the attention of the chair, but I think the response needs to clearly be the position of the overall Board, as expressed by the Chair perhaps, but not just a view or interpretation of the individual addressee... Joe On 5/4/2015 4:36 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > In response to Alissa's latest draft, I suggest we be attentive to the following: > > - yes, our role should limit itself to calling for transparency, etc. > > - If Alissa, as our Chair, is to send any message, it must be ONLY to the Chair of the ICANN Board, with copies to whoever else might be interested (ICANN CEO, CWG Chair or whatever). It cannot be our Chair's business to be corresponding with an employee of ICANN, even it that is the CEO. By addressing the Chair of the Board, it makes clear that we expect an answer (a commitment?) which would then speak on behalf of those who hold fiduciary duty within ICANN. To be understood and respected, we must abide by "parallel forms", that is Chair to Chair. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "joseph alhadeff" > À: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 09:36:09 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Alissa: > > I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the > statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of > transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of > transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a > clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it > either way. > > Best- > > Joe > On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. >> >> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: >> >> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. >> >> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. >> >> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. >> >> Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. >> >> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. >> >> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. >> >> As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. >> >> It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >> --- >> >> Proposed statement and note: >> >> Dear , >> >> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >> >> Thanks, >> The ICG >> >> -- >> >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From apb at cequrux.com Mon May 4 08:56:14 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 09:56:14 +0100 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <20150504085614.GC17667@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Sun, 03 May 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote: > There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within > the ICG: > > (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should > forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational > community. > > (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports > we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, > and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led > processes. > > (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, > community-led processes without direct reference to reports > about recent negotiations. > > [...] > > (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since > the former would require acknowledging recent reports and > specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us > to avoid referencing those same reports. I think that (2) and (3) are not incompatible. Indeed, your suggestion in the next paragrah seems to combine them, first issuing a neutral statement as in (3), and then a specific question as in (2). > My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral > statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then > forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a > further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those > pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more > neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. I support this course of action, and your proposed text (quoted below). --apb (Alan Barrett) > Proposed statement and note: > > Dear , > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition > process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the > statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with > provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts > or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be > made public. > > Thanks, The ICG > > -- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship > transition proceeds, operational communities have begun > discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements > called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG > expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition > process -- that all interested parties express their opinions > about the transition proposals openly and transparently > within the community processes. This includes opinions about > the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with > contracts or other agreements between the communities and the > IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the > opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the > community processes as early as possible. From jjs at dyalog.net Mon May 4 09:57:41 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 11:57:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <554731A9.5080604@oracle.com> Message-ID: <16938660.5.1430733459743.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello Joe, I agree with you, and sorry that was not clear in my response: our Chair would of course write on behalf of the ICG as a whole. My message was to insist that she send the message to the Chair of the ICANN Board, who would of course share it with the full Board (as a former member of the ICANN Board, I can guarantee this would be the case). There would be no point of sending such a message to some VP, or even the CEO, as fiduciary duty lies with the members of the Board. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "joseph alhadeff" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 10:45:29 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Jean-Jacques: I think it needs to be addressed to the Board as a whole and sent to or to the attention of the chair, but I think the response needs to clearly be the position of the overall Board, as expressed by the Chair perhaps, but not just a view or interpretation of the individual addressee... Joe On 5/4/2015 4:36 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > In response to Alissa's latest draft, I suggest we be attentive to the following: > > - yes, our role should limit itself to calling for transparency, etc. > > - If Alissa, as our Chair, is to send any message, it must be ONLY to the Chair of the ICANN Board, with copies to whoever else might be interested (ICANN CEO, CWG Chair or whatever). It cannot be our Chair's business to be corresponding with an employee of ICANN, even it that is the CEO. By addressing the Chair of the Board, it makes clear that we expect an answer (a commitment?) which would then speak on behalf of those who hold fiduciary duty within ICANN. To be understood and respected, we must abide by "parallel forms", that is Chair to Chair. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "joseph alhadeff" > À: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 09:36:09 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Alissa: > > I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the > statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of > transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of > transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a > clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it > either way. > > Best- > > Joe > On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. >> >> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: >> >> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. >> >> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. >> >> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. >> >> Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. >> >> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. >> >> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. >> >> As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. >> >> It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >> --- >> >> Proposed statement and note: >> >> Dear , >> >> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >> >> Thanks, >> The ICG >> >> -- >> >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 4 14:19:09 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 07:19:09 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <55472169.7050908@oracle.com> References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <55472169.7050908@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Joe, Actually I was thinking we would just publish the statement on our site (since it’s generic and speaks to all participants in the process) and then when we write the note(s) to ICANN board/staff we could link to it or reproduce it in the note. But of course we could still reverse the order. Alissa On May 4, 2015, at 12:36 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > Alissa: > > I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it either way. > > Best- > > Joe > On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. >> >> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: >> >> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. >> >> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. >> >> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. >> >> Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. >> >> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. >> >> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. >> >> As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. >> >> It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >> --- >> >> Proposed statement and note: >> >> Dear , >> >> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >> >> Thanks, >> The ICG >> >> -- >> >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Mon May 4 14:19:47 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:19:47 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would > require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, > and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. I guess I do not see the conflict there. We issue a general statement about the principles of openness and transparency which is for general consumption. In our communication to the ICANN board and CEO, we make a specific query about the CRISP-related report and how it relates to that principle, which as far as I know still has not been addressed by ICANN (the IETF MoU has been addressed to some extent). Regarding the sequence of the statements/query, I agree with Joe. From jjs at dyalog.net Mon May 4 14:33:06 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 16:33:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <12924418.88.1430749983956.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello Alissa, did you see my email on this? Here's a copy: "Hello Joe, I agree with you, and sorry that was not clear in my response: our Chair would of course write on behalf of the ICG as a whole. My message was to insist that she send the message to the Chair of the ICANN Board, who would of course share it with the full Board (as a former member of the ICANN Board, I can guarantee this would be the case). There would be no point of sending such a message to some VP, or even the CEO, as fiduciary duty lies with the members of the Board. Best regards, Jean-Jacques." Thanks. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "joseph alhadeff" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 16:19:09 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Hi Joe, Actually I was thinking we would just publish the statement on our site (since it’s generic and speaks to all participants in the process) and then when we write the note(s) to ICANN board/staff we could link to it or reproduce it in the note. But of course we could still reverse the order. Alissa On May 4, 2015, at 12:36 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > Alissa: > > I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it either way. > > Best- > > Joe > On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. >> >> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: >> >> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. >> >> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. >> >> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. >> >> Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. >> >> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. >> >> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. >> >> As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. >> >> It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Alissa >> >> --- >> >> Proposed statement and note: >> >> Dear , >> >> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >> >> Thanks, >> The ICG >> >> -- >> >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon May 4 15:14:22 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 17:14:22 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <55472169.7050908@oracle.com> Message-ID: <2D3B4F43-8260-418C-80B7-48EA24368198@gmail.com> Dear Alissa, Just send the Note to ICANN Board WITHOUT FORMALLY POST it on ICG SITE . The Note should begin with: I have noted..... Then end the message with: You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform me of your findings Regard Then Sing Alissa Cooper without any reference to or mentioning " On Behalf of ICG" Leave it to the Board to take it as it says This is the maximum Salutations Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 4 May 2015, at 16:19, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > Actually I was thinking we would just publish the statement on our site (since it’s generic and speaks to all participants in the process) and then when we write the note(s) to ICANN board/staff we could link to it or reproduce it in the note. But of course we could still reverse the order. > > Alissa > >> On May 4, 2015, at 12:36 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> Alissa: >> >> I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it either way. >> >> Best- >> >> Joe >>> On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. >>> >>> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: >>> >>> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. >>> >>> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. >>> >>> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. >>> >>> Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. >>> >>> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. >>> >>> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. >>> >>> As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. >>> >>> It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Proposed statement and note: >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> The ICG >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>> >>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Mon May 4 17:36:54 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 13:36:54 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: References: <008e01d07d16$cc1d2900$64577b00$@icgsec.asia> <8248c1ae89c74326814db5c88d70cd1a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <505D7DD2-7EB4-4CAB-BA66-A44E989ED427@cooperw.in> <55472169.7050908@oracle.com> Message-ID: <841E49CE-3CF1-4267-890C-D27140B54940@LStAmour.org> Hi Alissa, I support sending this out to the Chair of the ICANN Board (for the ICANN Board as a whole). I also believe that this should come from you noting that it is on behalf of the ICG. I believe it is important for us to show our support for the query. At the same time, it certainly seems it will be useful to reiterate our position on transparency and expectations re engagement in the OC processes, while giving the ICANN Board an opportunity to set the record straight. This is not an aggressive action, rather a responsible query. Finally, I am OK reversing the order, and hope we close on this soon. Best, Lynn On May 4, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Joe, > > Actually I was thinking we would just publish the statement on our site (since it’s generic and speaks to all participants in the process) and then when we write the note(s) to ICANN board/staff we could link to it or reproduce it in the note. But of course we could still reverse the order. > > Alissa > > On May 4, 2015, at 12:36 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > >> Alissa: >> >> I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it either way. >> >> Best- >> >> Joe >> On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. >>> >>> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: >>> >>> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. >>> >>> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. >>> >>> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. >>> >>> Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. >>> >>> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. >>> >>> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. >>> >>> As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. >>> >>> It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Proposed statement and note: >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> The ICG >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>> >>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 4 21:18:33 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:18:33 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <12924418.88.1430749983956.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <12924418.88.1430749983956.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <0C750E0A-FCD9-4999-B862-3E0E240B573D@cooperw.in> Hi Jean-Jacques, Yes. I’m fine with what you suggest. My only question is whether the Board/Board chair will be able to answer for the position of the staff. I noted in one of Bruce’s emails that the Board did not seem to have been involved in some of the discussions that have spurred interest in this topic. What do you think? Thanks, Alissa On May 4, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > Hello Alissa, > > did you see my email on this? Here's a copy: > > "Hello Joe, > > I agree with you, and sorry that was not clear in my response: our Chair would of course write on behalf of the ICG as a whole. > My message was to insist that she send the message to the Chair of the ICANN Board, who would of course share it with the full Board (as a former member of the ICANN Board, I can guarantee this would be the case). There would be no point of sending such a message to some VP, or even the CEO, as fiduciary duty lies with the members of the Board. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques." > > Thanks. > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Alissa Cooper" > À: "joseph alhadeff" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 16:19:09 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting > > Hi Joe, > > Actually I was thinking we would just publish the statement on our site (since it’s generic and speaks to all participants in the process) and then when we write the note(s) to ICANN board/staff we could link to it or reproduce it in the note. But of course we could still reverse the order. > > Alissa > > On May 4, 2015, at 12:36 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > >> Alissa: >> >> I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it either way. >> >> Best- >> >> Joe >> On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. >>> >>> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: >>> >>> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. >>> >>> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. >>> >>> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. >>> >>> Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. >>> >>> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. >>> >>> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. >>> >>> As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. >>> >>> It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Proposed statement and note: >>> >>> Dear , >>> >>> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> The ICG >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>> >>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Tue May 5 07:11:13 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 09:11:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Contracting In-Reply-To: <0C750E0A-FCD9-4999-B862-3E0E240B573D@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <9075229.223.1430809869969.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello Alissa, yes, the Chair of the ICANN Board can and should answer questions from the ICG about the corporation, even if they are related to Staff. In the latter case, he would ask CEO (who is an ex-officio member of the Board) to find out and report to the full Board. For reasons I already explained, including the need to respect parallel form, I think it would not be appropriate for you, on behalf of ICG, to address concerns or questions to any other level, such as BGC Chair, or ICANN CEO. It boils down to the fact that ICG is not subordinate to ICANN, and accountability is a duty of the Board. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org, "joseph alhadeff" Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 23:18:33 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Hi Jean-Jacques, Yes. I’m fine with what you suggest. My only question is whether the Board/Board chair will be able to answer for the position of the staff. I noted in one of Bruce’s emails < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-April/002685.html > that the Board did not seem to have been involved in some of the discussions that have spurred interest in this topic. What do you think? Thanks, Alissa On May 4, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques < jjs at dyalog.net > wrote: Hello Alissa, did you see my email on this? Here's a copy: "Hello Joe, I agree with you, and sorry that was not clear in my response: our Chair would of course write on behalf of the ICG as a whole. My message was to insist that she send the message to the Chair of the ICANN Board, who would of course share it with the full Board (as a former member of the ICANN Board, I can guarantee this would be the case). There would be no point of sending such a message to some VP, or even the CEO, as fiduciary duty lies with the members of the Board. Best regards, Jean-Jacques." Thanks. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" < alissa at cooperw.in > À: "joseph alhadeff" < joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 16:19:09 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting Hi Joe, Actually I was thinking we would just publish the statement on our site (since it’s generic and speaks to all participants in the process) and then when we write the note(s) to ICANN board/staff we could link to it or reproduce it in the note. But of course we could still reverse the order. Alissa On May 4, 2015, at 12:36 AM, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com > wrote: Alissa: I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it either way. Best- Joe On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward. There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG: (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community. (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes. (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations. Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement. (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports. My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome. As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic. It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better. Thoughts? Alissa --- Proposed statement and note: Dear , The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. Thanks, The ICG -- ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 5 18:35:39 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 11:35:39 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] CCWG-Accountability - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) Message-ID: <6D0F449F-728F-4185-B595-E82321152676@cooperw.in> FYI. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yannis at icgsec.asia Wed May 6 13:27:05 2015 From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 21:27:05 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle Poll for ICG Teleconference Call on May 19 (Tue) Message-ID: Dear ICG Members, The chairs would like to schedule a call on May 19 (Tue) to discuss the pre-assessment of the CWG proposal and/or the statement on contracting. Please kindly filled out the below doodle poll with time slots between 19:00 - 22:00 UTC. http://doodle.com/3946p3yya6zkgp3p Appreciate your response by May 12 (Tue). Thank you very much. Best Regards, Yannis Li ICG Secretariat From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 6 15:10:54 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 08:10:54 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements Message-ID: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> I’d like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I’ve included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I’ve seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I’d like to make a consensus call before proceeding. Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. Thanks, Alissa Statement: -------------- ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. Email to Steve Crocker: ------------------------------- Dear Steve, The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed May 6 17:07:42 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 19:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <00ED79E8-7777-4BDE-B19D-5B2298545D81@gmail.com> Dear Alissa Thank you again for your efforts If everybody agrees with the course of action that you proposed I would join the consensus to be emerged that you send the message on behalf of ICG but with the introductory words that I have suggested as well as with the closing phrase that I did suggest . These suggestions would in no way change the thrust and objectives of your recent edits Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone > On 6 May 2015, at 17:10, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > I’d like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I’ve included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I’ve seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I’d like to make a consensus call before proceeding. > > Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed May 6 19:00:46 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 21:00:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANAStewardship Transition Message-ID: All, please see the letter from NTIA attached. I think the question raised about scheduling the transition plan implementation should be discussed at the next ICG call. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Mathieu Weill Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 8:34 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANAStewardship Transition Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed a correspondence from assistant Secretary Strickling requesting our input. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré : Expéditeur: Fiona Alexander Date: 6 mai 2015 20:11:15 UTC+2 Destinataire: "Rickert at anwaelte.de" , "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" , "Mathieu.weill at afnic.fr" Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" Objet: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the CCWG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the ICG. Fiona ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona M. Alexander Associate Administrator for International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (202) 482-1866 www.ntia.doc.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear colleagues, Please find enclosed a correspondence from assistant Secretary Strickling requesting our input. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré : > Expéditeur: Fiona Alexander > Date: 6 mai 2015 20:11:15 UTC+2 > Destinataire: "Rickert at anwaelte.de" , "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" , "Mathieu.weill at afnic.fr" > Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" > Objet: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the CCWG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the ICG. > > Fiona > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Fiona M. Alexander > Associate Administrator for International Affairs > National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > (202) 482-1866 > www.ntia.doc.gov > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to CCWG May 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 605455 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 6 19:20:53 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 21:20:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANAStewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, I can confirm a letter has reached us chairs/co-chairs as well. Patrik Fältström Co-Chair ICG On 6 May 2015, at 21:00, WUKnoben wrote: > All, > > please see the letter from NTIA attached. I think the question raised about scheduling the transition plan implementation should be discussed at the next ICG call. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > From: Mathieu Weill > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 8:34 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANAStewardship Transition > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find enclosed a correspondence from assistant Secretary Strickling requesting our input. > > Best, > > Mathieu Weill > --------------- > Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > > Début du message transféré : > > > Expéditeur: Fiona Alexander > Date: 6 mai 2015 20:11:15 UTC+2 > Destinataire: "Rickert at anwaelte.de" , "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" , "Mathieu.weill at afnic.fr" > Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" > Objet: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > > > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the CCWG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the ICG. > > > > Fiona > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Fiona M. Alexander > > Associate Administrator for International Affairs > > National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > > (202) 482-1866 > > www.ntia.doc.gov > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear colleagues, > > Please find enclosed a correspondence from assistant Secretary Strickling requesting our input. > > Best, > Mathieu Weill > --------------- > Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > > Début du message transféré : > >> Expéditeur: Fiona Alexander >> Date: 6 mai 2015 20:11:15 UTC+2 >> Destinataire: "Rickert at anwaelte.de" , "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" , "Mathieu.weill at afnic.fr" >> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >> Objet: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> >> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the CCWG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the ICG. >> >> Fiona >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Fiona M. Alexander >> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >> (202) 482-1866 >> www.ntia.doc.gov >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > [Letter to CCWG May 6.pdf] > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to ICG May 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 589006 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 6 20:46:51 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 20:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Support --MM > -----Original Message----- > Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate > whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the > email below. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship > transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions > with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other > agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG > expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- > that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition > proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. > This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and > mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between > the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly > crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared > within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if > ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at > . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in > any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, > the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed May 6 21:17:40 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 17:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <554A84F4.70307@oracle.com> support Joe On 5/6/2015 4:46 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Support > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate >> whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the >> email below. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >> Statement: >> -------------- >> >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship >> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions >> with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other >> agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG >> expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- >> that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition >> proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. >> This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and >> mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between >> the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly >> crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared >> within the community processes as early as possible. >> >> >> >> Email to Steve Crocker: >> ------------------------------- >> >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if >> ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at >> . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in >> any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, >> the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 6 21:26:21 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 14:26:21 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANAStewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <516E3439-5A60-4B15-A042-E43E7908F884@cooperw.in> We are working up some thoughts on timeline to share with the group shortly. Alissa > On May 6, 2015, at 12:00 PM, WUKnoben wrote: > > All, > > please see the letter from NTIA attached. I think the question raised about scheduling the transition plan implementation should be discussed at the next ICG call. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Mathieu Weill > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 8:34 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANAStewardship Transition > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find enclosed a correspondence from assistant Secretary Strickling requesting our input. > > Best, > Mathieu Weill > --------------- > Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > > Début du message transféré : > >> Expéditeur: Fiona Alexander >> Date: 6 mai 2015 20:11:15 UTC+2 >> Destinataire: "Rickert at anwaelte.de" , "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" , "Mathieu.weill at afnic.fr" >> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >> Objet: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the CCWG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the ICG. >> >> >> >> Fiona >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Fiona M. Alexander >> >> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >> >> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >> >> (202) 482-1866 >> >> www.ntia.doc.gov >> > Dear colleagues, > > Please find enclosed a correspondence from assistant Secretary Strickling requesting our input. > > Best, > Mathieu Weill > --------------- > Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > > Début du message transféré : > > > Expéditeur: Fiona Alexander > > Date: 6 mai 2015 20:11:15 UTC+2 > > Destinataire: "Rickert at anwaelte.de" , "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" , "Mathieu.weill at afnic.fr" > > Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" > > Objet: Letter to the CCWG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > > > > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the CCWG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the ICG. > > > > Fiona > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Fiona M. Alexander > > Associate Administrator for International Affairs > > National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > > (202) 482-1866 > > www.ntia.doc.gov > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 6 22:05:08 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 15:05:08 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Fiona Alexander > Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT > To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" > Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" > > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. > > Fiona > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Fiona M. Alexander > Associate Administrator for International Affairs > National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > (202) 482-1866 > www.ntia.doc.gov > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to ICG May 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 589006 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 6 22:32:26 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 22:32:26 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: <8f3ec1a92f1b487b8d793e4a2f4c2db7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> NTIA is calculating whether they need to start preparing to extend the contract. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:05 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Begin forwarded message: From: Fiona Alexander > Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" >, "paf at frobbit.se" >, "mbashir at mbash.net" > Cc: Larry Strickling >, "fadi.chehade at icann.org" > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. Fiona ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona M. Alexander Associate Administrator for International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (202) 482-1866 www.ntia.doc.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xl at cnnic.cn Wed May 6 22:48:14 2015 From: xl at cnnic.cn (Xiaodong Lee) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 06:48:14 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: <9AFF7427-A213-4382-868F-8B6B43CADA1D@cnnic.cn> This should be listed as the topic of our next meeting. Best Regards, -- Dr. Xiaodong Lee > 在 2015年5月7日，06:05，Alissa Cooper 写道： > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Fiona Alexander >> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" >> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >> >> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. >> >> Fiona >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Fiona M. Alexander >> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >> (202) 482-1866 >> www.ntia.doc.gov > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jon at donuts.co Wed May 6 22:56:52 2015 From: jon at donuts.co (Jon Nevett) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 15:56:52 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: <8f3ec1a92f1b487b8d793e4a2f4c2db7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> <8f3ec1a92f1b487b8d793e4a2f4c2db7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I don't see how they could not extend at this point. They could extend in parts, though. They don't need to do the full 2 year extension at one time (e.g. they could extend through 30 June 2016). Jon > On May 6, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > NTIA is calculating whether they need to start preparing to extend the contract. > > --MM > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:05 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Fiona Alexander > Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT > To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" > Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" > > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. > > Fiona > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Fiona M. Alexander > Associate Administrator for International Affairs > National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > (202) 482-1866 > www.ntia.doc.gov > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xl at cnnic.cn Wed May 6 23:00:21 2015 From: xl at cnnic.cn (Xiaodong Lee) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 07:00:21 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> <8f3ec1a92f1b487b8d793e4a2f4c2db7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <88EFCC17-C7C2-497A-A7C6-F72FB0E76769@cnnic.cn> If they renew the contract, but If community finish the job soon, how they reflect this situation in the contract is the key point. Best Regards, -- Dr. Xiaodong Lee > 在 2015年5月7日，06:56，Jon Nevett 写道： > > I don't see how they could not extend at this point. They could extend in parts, though. They don't need to do the full 2 year extension at one time (e.g. they could extend through 30 June 2016). > > Jon > >> On May 6, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> NTIA is calculating whether they need to start preparing to extend the contract. >> >> --MM >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:05 PM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> From: Fiona Alexander >> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" >> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >> >> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. >> >> Fiona >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Fiona M. Alexander >> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >> (202) 482-1866 >> www.ntia.doc.gov >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed May 6 23:24:26 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 23:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> <8f3ec1a92f1b487b8d793e4a2f4c2db7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Agree, but I think they also see implementation as an unknown factor in their extension calculus. And by asking us (ICG and OCs) to provide the timeframe, they insulate themselves from any concerns that they are stalling the process. J. From: Jon Nevett > Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 17:56 To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition I don't see how they could not extend at this point. They could extend in parts, though. They don't need to do the full 2 year extension at one time (e.g. they could extend through 30 June 2016). Jon On May 6, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: NTIA is calculating whether they need to start preparing to extend the contract. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:05 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Begin forwarded message: From: Fiona Alexander > Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" >, "paf at frobbit.se" >, "mbashir at mbash.net" > Cc: Larry Strickling >, "fadi.chehade at icann.org" > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. Fiona ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona M. Alexander Associate Administrator for International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (202) 482-1866 www.ntia.doc.gov _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu May 7 00:47:43 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 17:47:43 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> Message-ID: <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Bruce Tonkin > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT > To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals > > Hello All, > > > Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: > >>> "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." > > The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. > > The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. > > The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu May 7 01:23:32 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 01:23:32 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Favor/Support. J. On 5/6/15, 10:10 , "Alissa Cooper" wrote: >I¹d like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to >contracting/agreements. Below I¹ve included the text of the statement to >be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. >I¹ve seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about >whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I¹d >like to make a consensus call before proceeding. > >Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate >whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email >below. > >Thanks, >Alissa > > >Statement: >-------------- > >ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > >As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition >proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN >concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for >in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested >parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and >transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions >about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with >contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA >functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the >proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as >early as possible. > > > >Email to Steve Crocker: >------------------------------- > >Dear Steve, > >The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if >ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at >. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in >any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the >ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > >Thanks, >Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu May 7 01:25:26 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 01:25:26 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle Poll for ICG Teleconference Call on May 19 (Tue) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Yannis & ICG: Unfortunately I will be attending a day-long meeting on 19 May. Once the call time is posted, I will try to dial in if I can step away. Thanks‹ J. On 5/6/15, 8:27 , "Yannis Li" wrote: >Dear ICG Members, > >The chairs would like to schedule a call on May 19 (Tue) to discuss the >pre-assessment of the CWG proposal and/or the statement on contracting. > >Please kindly filled out the below doodle poll with time slots between >19:00 - 22:00 UTC. >http://doodle.com/3946p3yya6zkgp3p > >Appreciate your response by May 12 (Tue). > >Thank you very much. > >Best Regards, >Yannis Li >ICG Secretariat > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From pwilson at apnic.net Thu May 7 01:56:15 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:56:15 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle Poll for ICG Teleconference Call on May 19 (Tue) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185A924E-3FF6-4E55-AA0F-FFFECD8EBB08@apnic.net> Thanks Yannis. First 2 options conflict with a 2-hour conference session about the IANA transition which is being held during the LACNIC meeting in Lima. I will be a panellist during that meeting, and also need to follow discussions; hence only able to attend the ICG if held in the 3rd timeslot. If option 1 or 2 are chosen, then both Alan Barrett and myself will be affected, as would anyone else with an interest to follow both the ICG meeting and LACNIC session (and there may be a few in the LAC region). Therefore if at all possible, I suggest to select the 3rd option, or another time entirely. Paul. On 6 May 2015, at 23:27, Yannis Li wrote: > Dear ICG Members, > > The chairs would like to schedule a call on May 19 (Tue) to discuss > the pre-assessment of the CWG proposal and/or the statement on > contracting. > > Please kindly filled out the below doodle poll with time slots between > 19:00 - 22:00 UTC. > http://doodle.com/3946p3yya6zkgp3p > > Appreciate your response by May 12 (Tue). > > Thank you very much. > > Best Regards, > Yannis Li > ICG Secretariat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu May 7 03:02:12 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:02:12 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB507@ACCAN01.accan.local> Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Bruce Tonkin > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu May 7 03:11:14 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:11:14 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB509@ACCAN01.accan.local> Alissa, all I offer some wordsmithing as per below. I have used capitals used in order to delineate from the previous text, and I ask that you please revert to lower case before sending. Note I have deleted a redundant 'particularly' as something is either crucial or not... As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, THE ICG NOTES THAT operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their RESPECTIVE transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties WILL express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently AND within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ANY FINAL PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER SUPPORT, it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. Regards Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 1:11 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements I'd like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I've included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I've seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I'd like to make a consensus call before proceeding. Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. Thanks, Alissa Statement: -------------- ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. Email to Steve Crocker: ------------------------------- Dear Steve, The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu May 7 04:21:27 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 04:21:27 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB507@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in>, <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB507@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: Hi Narelle, In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't. Regards, Keith On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark > wrote: Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Bruce Tonkin > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu May 7 04:35:19 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 21:35:19 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <00ED79E8-7777-4BDE-B19D-5B2298545D81@gmail.com> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> <00ED79E8-7777-4BDE-B19D-5B2298545D81@gmail.com> Message-ID: <110A4CBB-6F2C-486C-BF4E-FAC56FB73205@cooperw.in> Hi Kavouss, Sure, but rather than use singular pronouns I’d like to use plural pronouns for the ICG since as a group we have an interest in the response, e.g.: -- Dear Steve, The ICG _has noted that_ it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. _You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings._ Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -- On May 6, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Alissa > Thank you again for your efforts > If everybody agrees with the course of action that you proposed I would join the consensus to be emerged that you send the message on behalf of ICG but with the introductory words that I have suggested as well as with the closing phrase that I did suggest . These suggestions would in no way change the thrust and objectives of your recent edits > Regards > Kavousd > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 6 May 2015, at 17:10, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> I’d like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I’ve included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I’ve seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I’d like to make a consensus call before proceeding. >> >> Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >> Statement: >> -------------- >> >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> >> >> >> Email to Steve Crocker: >> ------------------------------- >> >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu May 7 04:37:32 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 21:37:32 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB509@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB509@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: Hi Narelle, I have no problem with most of these changes, although I hope we can limit the wordsmithing at this point since otherwise it will be difficult to close on this. I have one comment below, however. On May 6, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > Alissa, all > I offer some wordsmithing as per below. I have used capitals used in order to delineate from the previous text, and I ask that you please revert to lower case before sending. Note I have deleted a redundant 'particularly' as something is either crucial or not... > > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, THE ICG NOTES THAT operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their RESPECTIVE transition proposals. > > The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties WILL express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently AND within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ANY FINAL PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER SUPPORT, Are you referencing some specific principle here (i.e., one of the NTIA criteria)? Or just multistakeholder support generally? Thanks, Alissa > it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > Regards > > > Narelle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 1:11 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements > > I'd like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I've included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I've seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I'd like to make a consensus call before proceeding. > > Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mbashir at mbash.net Thu May 7 04:49:28 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 07:49:28 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB507@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: + Keith, we still need to issue our statement . Kind Regards, Mohamed > On 7 May 2015, at 07:21, Drazek, Keith wrote: > > Hi Narelle, > > In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't. > > Regards, > Keith > > On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > >> Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? >> >> Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM >> To: ICG >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals >> >> FYI >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Bruce Tonkin >> Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT >> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" >> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals >> >> Hello All, >> >> >> Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: >> >> >> "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." >> >> The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. >> >> The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. >> >> The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. >> >> Regards, >> Bruce Tonkin >> >> Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu May 7 05:06:57 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 07:06:57 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB507@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <3D6C42B0-3ED7-4EB3-8884-F193D47C485C@frobbit.se> Hi, My reading is that this addresses a similar but not the same issue(s). It does not explicitly talk about both ICANN Staff and Board, and it also only talk about the by ICANN run processes (i.e. the CWG and CCWG, and not the other OCs for numbers and protocols). Patrik On 7 May 2015, at 6:21, Drazek, Keith wrote: > Hi Narelle, > > In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't. > > Regards, > Keith > > On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark > wrote: > > Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? > > Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? > > > Narelle > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM > To: ICG > Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals > > FYI > > Begin forwarded message: > From: Bruce Tonkin > > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT > To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" > > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Hello All, > > > Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: > > > "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." > > The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. > > The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. > > The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu May 7 06:21:01 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 16:21:01 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB509@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB539@ACCAN01.accan.local> Yes, I am specifically referencing the NTIA criteria. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 2:38 PM To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements Hi Narelle, I have no problem with most of these changes, although I hope we can limit the wordsmithing at this point since otherwise it will be difficult to close on this. I have one comment below, however. On May 6, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > Alissa, all > I offer some wordsmithing as per below. I have used capitals used in order to delineate from the previous text, and I ask that you please revert to lower case before sending. Note I have deleted a redundant 'particularly' as something is either crucial or not... > > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, THE ICG NOTES THAT operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their RESPECTIVE transition proposals. > > The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties WILL express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently AND within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ANY FINAL PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER SUPPORT, Are you referencing some specific principle here (i.e., one of the NTIA criteria)? Or just multistakeholder support generally? Thanks, Alissa > it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > Regards > > > Narelle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 1:11 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements > > I'd like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I've included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I've seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I'd like to make a consensus call before proceeding. > > Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu May 7 06:21:23 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 16:21:23 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB507@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB53A@ACCAN01.accan.local> Fair enough, then. Narelle From: Mohamed El Bashir [mailto:mbashir at mbash.net] Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 2:49 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: Narelle Clark; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals + Keith, we still need to issue our statement . Kind Regards, Mohamed On 7 May 2015, at 07:21, Drazek, Keith > wrote: Hi Narelle, In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't. Regards, Keith On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark > wrote: Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Bruce Tonkin > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu May 7 06:58:11 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 08:58:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB539@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <32470144.312.1430981888734.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello Alissa & All, - I support Alissa's proposal to issue a Statement, and send a letter to the Chair of the ICANN Board, on behalf of the ICG. - Statement: I support Narelle's proposed modification, but suggest deleting one occurrence of the word "and". Thus, the sentence should read "The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties will express their opinions about the transition proposals openly, transparently and within the community processes." Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Narelle Clark" À: "Alissa Cooper" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 08:21:01 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements Yes, I am specifically referencing the NTIA criteria. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 2:38 PM To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements Hi Narelle, I have no problem with most of these changes, although I hope we can limit the wordsmithing at this point since otherwise it will be difficult to close on this. I have one comment below, however. On May 6, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > Alissa, all > I offer some wordsmithing as per below. I have used capitals used in order to delineate from the previous text, and I ask that you please revert to lower case before sending. Note I have deleted a redundant 'particularly' as something is either crucial or not... > > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, THE ICG NOTES THAT operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their RESPECTIVE transition proposals. > > The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties WILL express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently AND within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ANY FINAL PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER SUPPORT, Are you referencing some specific principle here (i.e., one of the NTIA criteria)? Or just multistakeholder support generally? Thanks, Alissa > it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > Regards > > > Narelle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 1:11 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements > > I'd like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I've included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I've seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I'd like to make a consensus call before proceeding. > > Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu May 7 07:09:24 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 07:09:24 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB507@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: Dear All .. I was not against issuing a statement at the beginning, but after reading Bruce's email, shared by Alissa, I believe it already responds to many of the points we want to make .. So if we are still to issue a statement, I believe it should be a bit different and somehow acknowledge the positive response provided (after seeking clarification on any unclear points of course) .. At the end, I would go by the group's decision but allow me to explain further my point .. - The statement already confirms that the o Board supports the community processes o ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms o Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process o Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing - Unclear points o Whether the statement is made only on behalf of the Board or includes ICANN staff as well is still unclear; as rightly pointed out by Keith, Patrik and others .. It's interesting that the statement refers once to ICANN rather than ICANN Board .. I'm not sure whether this is intended or not .. But in all cases, we should explicitly ask the question and I believe Keith has already posed this question on the CCWG-ACCT mailing list .. o On Patrik's point " it also only talk about the by ICANN run processes (i.e. the CWG and CCWG, and not the other OCs for numbers and protocols)" .. Frankly I did not have the same impression, the first para refers to " community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability " which I thought would normally cover all OC processes including protocols and numbers .. the second para refers to " the various transition proposals," which again I thought to include proposals submitted by protocols and numbers .. the 3rd para refers only to " recent reports from the CWG and CCWG ", which I read as referencing the drafts currently open for public comment .. But again I see no harm from explicitly posing this question .. I have the feeling that posting the statement as initially discussed: - May bring us again the same response already submitted by Broad - We may not receive the required clarification on the above 2 unclear points - And may sound as if we were not informed about the Board's response So my suggestion is to: - Seek explicit clarification on the above 2 points and others, if any .. This could be done over email, through Broad liaison or any other appropriate means - Issue a statement that would re-iterate our principles and acknowledge the Board's confirmation on: ….. a list of what has been confirmed (hopefully all issues) Apologies for the long email and for not being so helpful in moving things forward but the Board's response has just been issued and circulated .. Happy to discuss further and equally happy to go by the group's decision should it end to be different .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mohamed El Bashir Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:49 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals + Keith, we still need to issue our statement . Kind Regards, Mohamed On 7 May 2015, at 07:21, Drazek, Keith > wrote: Hi Narelle, In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't. Regards, Keith On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark > wrote: Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Bruce Tonkin > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu May 7 07:10:10 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 09:10:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1806439.348.1430982609131.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hi, I share the analysis made by Milton, Jon and James. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "James M. Bladel" À: "Jon Nevett" , "Milton L Mueller" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 01:24:26 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Agree, but I think they also see implementation as an unknown factor in their extension calculus. And by asking us (ICG and OCs) to provide the timeframe, they insulate themselves from any concerns that they are stalling the process. J. From: Jon Nevett < jon at donuts.co > Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 17:56 To: Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > Cc: " internal-cg at ianacg.org " < internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition I don't see how they could not extend at this point. They could extend in parts, though. They don't need to do the full 2 year extension at one time (e.g. they could extend through 30 June 2016). Jon On May 6, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: NTIA is calculating whether they need to start preparing to extend the contract. --MM From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:05 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Begin forwarded message: From: Fiona Alexander < FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov > Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT To: " Alissa at cooperw.in " < Alissa at cooperw.in >, " paf at frobbit.se " < paf at frobbit.se >, " mbashir at mbash.net " < mbashir at mbash.net > Cc: Larry Strickling < LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov >, " fadi.chehade at icann.org " < fadi.chehade at icann.org > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. Fiona ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona M. Alexander Associate Administrator for International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (202) 482-1866 www.ntia.doc..gov _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu May 7 07:31:38 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 07:31:38 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: <1806439.348.1430982609131.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <1806439.348.1430982609131.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: Thanks Alissa, Patrik and Wolf-Ulrich for sharing .. Like other colleagues who suggested, I also support discussing this at our upcoming ICG call .. Thanks Alissa for noting that chair/co-chairs are working up some thoughts on timeline to share with the group shortly .. I believe, at some point in time, we will also be coordinating this with the OCs? And probably through CWG, this will be cross checked with what the CCWG have in mind, at least with respect to work stream 1? Just thinking out loud !! Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:10 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Hi, I share the analysis made by Milton, Jon and James. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "James M. Bladel" À: "Jon Nevett" , "Milton L Mueller" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 01:24:26 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Agree, but I think they also see implementation as an unknown factor in their extension calculus. And by asking us (ICG and OCs) to provide the timeframe, they insulate themselves from any concerns that they are stalling the process. J. From: Jon Nevett < jon at donuts.co > Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 17:56 To: Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > Cc: " internal-cg at ianacg.org " < internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition I don't see how they could not extend at this point. They could extend in parts, though. They don't need to do the full 2 year extension at one time (e.g. they could extend through 30 June 2016). Jon On May 6, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu > wrote: NTIA is calculating whether they need to start preparing to extend the contract. --MM From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:05 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Begin forwarded message: From: Fiona Alexander < FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov > Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT To: " Alissa at cooperw.in " < Alissa at cooperw.in >, " paf at frobbit.se " < paf at frobbit.se >, " mbashir at mbash.net " < mbashir at mbash.net > Cc: Larry Strickling < LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov >, " fadi.chehade at icann.org " < fadi.chehade at icann.org > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. Fiona ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona M. Alexander Associate Administrator for International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (202) 482-1866 www.ntia.doc..gov _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Thu May 7 08:06:18 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:06:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2445651.453.1430985975947.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Manal, thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I would just like to point out that: - The Chair of a Board Committee at ICANN (BGC in this case) cannot speak on behalf of the bull Board, nor on behalf of Staff. And although the Chair of that Board Committee is a member of the CCWG-Accountability, that does not give him authority to express the views of the full ICANN Board, when interacting with an outside entity such as ICG. - as I've already mentioned, the ICG is constituted as an independent body, not subordinated to ICANN. Because of this (important) feature, our formal interaction with ICANN (letters, emails) should be only from Chair to Chair. Allow me to mention an analogy: the Chair of the GAC formally interacts only with the Chair of the ICANN Board. - I don't see any problem in repetition: if the full Board supports the position expressed by the Chair of one of its committees (BGC here), it will have no problem agreeing to the Board Chair replying to the ICG Chair, using the same terms. Naturally, my remarks above do not in any constitute a criticism of any individual on the ICANN Board; I just think that proper process contributes to clarity and, ultimately, to accountability. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Mohamed El Bashir" , "Keith Drazek" Cc: "ICG" Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 09:09:24 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Dear All .. I was not against issuing a statement at the beginning, but after reading Bruce's email, shared by Alissa, I believe it already responds to many of the points we want to make .. So if we are still to issue a statement, I believe it should be a bit different and somehow acknowledge the positive response provided (after seeking clarification on any unclear points of course) .. At the end, I would go by the group's decision but allow me to explain further my point .. - The statement already confirms that the o Board supports the community processes o ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms o Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process o Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing - Unclear points o Whether the statement is made only on behalf of the Board or includes ICANN staff as well is still unclear; as rightly pointed out by Keith, Patrik and others .. It's interesting that the statement refers once to ICANN rather than ICANN Board .. I'm not sure whether this is intended or not .. But in all cases, we should explicitly ask the question and I believe Keith has already posed this question on the CCWG-ACCT mailing list .. o On Patrik's point " it also only talk about the by ICANN run processes (i.e. the CWG and CCWG, and not the other OCs for numbers and protocols) " .. Frankly I did not have the same impression, the first para refers to " community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability " which I thought would normally cover all OC processes including protocols and numbers .. the second para refers to " the various transition proposals, " which again I thought to include proposals submitted by protocols and numbers .. the 3 rd para refers only to " recent reports from the CWG and CCWG ", which I read as referencing the drafts currently open for public comment .. But again I see no harm from explicitly posing this question .. I have the feeling that posting the statement as initially discussed: - May bring us again the same response already submitted by Broad - We may not receive the required clarification on the above 2 unclear points - And may sound as if we were not informed about the Board's response So my suggestion is to: - Seek explicit clarification on the above 2 points and others, if any .. This could be done over email, through Broad liaison or any other appropriate means - Issue a statement that would re-iterate our principles and acknowledge the Board's confirmation on: ….. a list of what has been confirmed (hopefully all issues) Apologies for the long email and for not being so helpful in moving things forward but the Board's response has just been issued and circulated .. Happy to discuss further and equally happy to go by the group's decision should it end to be different .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mohamed El Bashir Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:49 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals + Keith, we still need to issue our statement . Kind Regards, Mohamed On 7 May 2015, at 07:21, Drazek, Keith < kdrazek at verisign.com > wrote: Hi Narelle, In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't. Regards, Keith On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark < narelle.clark at accan.org.au > wrote: Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? Narelle From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT To: " accountability-cross-community at icann.org " < accountability-cross-community at icann.org > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu May 7 10:02:30 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:02:30 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: <2445651.453.1430985975947.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <2445651.453.1430985975947.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <16f3822426c3478f9abfba23421ad825@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Many thanks Jean-Jacques for your reply .. Responses inline below .. I thought it would be more effective and shorter :) .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 10:06 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: ICG; Mohamed El Bashir; Keith Drazek Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Dear Manal, thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I would just like to point out that: - The Chair of a Board Committee at ICANN (BGC in this case) cannot speak on behalf of the bull Board, nor on behalf of Staff. And although the Chair of that Board Committee is a member of the CCWG-Accountability, that does not give him authority to express the views of the full ICANN Board, when interacting with an outside entity such as ICG. [MI]: I see your point .. - as I've already mentioned, the ICG is constituted as an independent body, not subordinated to ICANN. Because of this (important) feature, our formal interaction with ICANN (letters, emails) should be only from Chair to Chair. Allow me to mention an analogy: the Chair of the GAC formally interacts only with the Chair of the ICANN Board. [MI]: Fair enough .. I don't suggest otherwise .. What I was thinking, and apologies if I was unclear, is that things be cleared through an exchange, between both chairs as you suggest, seeking confirmation on what was conveyed and clarification on what was not, before issuing a statement .. My thinking was that this may lead to a more positive statement at the end which resolves issues, hold the Board committed as per their response and puts everyone on the same page .. So I believe it's just a matter of switching the currently suggested order, which is issuing a statement, then seeking clarification .. But as I mentioned earlier I can live with the initial proposal too if it enjoys more support .. - I don't see any problem in repetition: if the full Board supports the position expressed by the Chair of one of its committees (BGC here), it will have no problem agreeing to the Board Chair replying to the ICG Chair, using the same terms. [MI]: I fully agree .. but my point was that this may not answer the unclear points identified by Keith (about staff) and Patrik (about numbers & protocol parameters) .. Naturally, my remarks above do not in any constitute a criticism of any individual on the ICANN Board; I just think that proper process contributes to clarity and, ultimately, to accountability. [MI]: I believe they are all fair points .. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Mohamed El Bashir" , "Keith Drazek" Cc: "ICG" Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 09:09:24 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Dear All .. I was not against issuing a statement at the beginning, but after reading Bruce's email, shared by Alissa, I believe it already responds to many of the points we want to make .. So if we are still to issue a statement, I believe it should be a bit different and somehow acknowledge the positive response provided (after seeking clarification on any unclear points of course) .. At the end, I would go by the group's decision but allow me to explain further my point .. - The statement already confirms that the o Board supports the community processes o ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms o Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process o Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing - Unclear points o Whether the statement is made only on behalf of the Board or includes ICANN staff as well is still unclear; as rightly pointed out by Keith, Patrik and others .. It's interesting that the statement refers once to ICANN rather than ICANN Board .. I'm not sure whether this is intended or not .. But in all cases, we should explicitly ask the question and I believe Keith has already posed this question on the CCWG-ACCT mailing list .. o On Patrik's point " it also only talk about the by ICANN run processes (i.e. the CWG and CCWG, and not the other OCs for numbers and protocols) " .. Frankly I did not have the same impression, the first para refers to " community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability " which I thought would normally cover all OC processes including protocols and numbers .. the second para refers to " the various transition proposals, " which again I thought to include proposals submitted by protocols and numbers .. the 3 rd para refers only to " recent reports from the CWG and CCWG ", which I read as referencing the drafts currently open for public comment .. But again I see no harm from explicitly posing this question .. I have the feeling that posting the statement as initially discussed: - May bring us again the same response already submitted by Broad - We may not receive the required clarification on the above 2 unclear points - And may sound as if we were not informed about the Board's response So my suggestion is to: - Seek explicit clarification on the above 2 points and others, if any .. This could be done over email, through Broad liaison or any other appropriate means - Issue a statement that would re-iterate our principles and acknowledge the Board's confirmation on: ….. a list of what has been confirmed (hopefully all issues) Apologies for the long email and for not being so helpful in moving things forward but the Board's response has just been issued and circulated .. Happy to discuss further and equally happy to go by the group's decision should it end to be different .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mohamed El Bashir Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:49 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals + Keith, we still need to issue our statement . Kind Regards, Mohamed On 7 May 2015, at 07:21, Drazek, Keith < kdrazek at verisign.com > wrote: Hi Narelle, In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't. Regards, Keith On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark < narelle.clark at accan.org.au > wrote: Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? Narelle From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT To: " accountability-cross-community at icann.org " < accountability-cross-community at icann.org > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Thu May 7 10:22:52 2015 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 12:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> <8f3ec1a92f1b487b8d793e4a2f4c2db7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <017C18BA-03E7-434D-A082-7EA2FBC80BF0@t-online.de> Do they need to extend at all? What's going to happen if they just let expire the contract? Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 07.05.2015 um 00:56 schrieb Jon Nevett : > > I don't see how they could not extend at this point. They could extend in parts, though. They don't need to do the full 2 year extension at one time (e.g. they could extend through 30 June 2016). > > Jon > >> On May 6, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> NTIA is calculating whether they need to start preparing to extend the contract. >> >> --MM >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:05 PM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> From: Fiona Alexander >> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" >> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >> >> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. >> >> Fiona >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Fiona M. Alexander >> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >> (202) 482-1866 >> www.ntia.doc.gov >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jon at donuts.co Thu May 7 10:32:57 2015 From: jon at donuts.co (Jon Nevett) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 06:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: <017C18BA-03E7-434D-A082-7EA2FBC80BF0@t-online.de> References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> <8f3ec1a92f1b487b8d793e4a2f4c2db7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <017C18BA-03E7-434D-A082-7EA2FBC80BF0@t-online.de> Message-ID: Wolf-Ulrich: They certainly could do that under the agreement, but they most assuredly would not without a suitable replacement in place. Best, Jon > On May 7, 2015, at 6:22 AM, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: > > Do they need to extend at all? What's going to happen if they just let expire the contract? > > Wolf-Ulrich > > Sent from my personal phone > >> Am 07.05.2015 um 00:56 schrieb Jon Nevett : >> >> I don't see how they could not extend at this point. They could extend in parts, though. They don't need to do the full 2 year extension at one time (e.g. they could extend through 30 June 2016). >> >> Jon >> >>> On May 6, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> NTIA is calculating whether they need to start preparing to extend the contract. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:05 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> From: Fiona Alexander >>> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >>> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >>> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" >>> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >>> >>> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. >>> >>> Fiona >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Fiona M. Alexander >>> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >>> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >>> (202) 482-1866 >>> www.ntia.doc.gov >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu May 7 12:52:50 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 14:52:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: <16f3822426c3478f9abfba23421ad825@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <766985.596.1431003167574.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Thanks Manal for the clarification. Our comments are in the hands of Alissa. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: "ICG" , "Mohamed El Bashir" , "Keith Drazek" Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 12:02:30 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Many thanks Jean-Jacques for your reply .. Responses inline below .. I thought it would be more effective and shorter :) .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 10:06 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: ICG; Mohamed El Bashir; Keith Drazek Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Dear Manal, thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I would just like to point out that: - The Chair of a Board Committee at ICANN (BGC in this case) cannot speak on behalf of the bull Board, nor on behalf of Staff. And although the Chair of that Board Committee is a member of the CCWG-Accountability, that does not give him authority to express the views of the full ICANN Board, when interacting with an outside entity such as ICG. [MI]: I see your point .. - as I've already mentioned, the ICG is constituted as an independent body, not subordinated to ICANN. Because of this (important) feature, our formal interaction with ICANN (letters, emails) should be only from Chair to Chair. Allow me to mention an analogy: the Chair of the GAC formally interacts only with the Chair of the ICANN Board. [MI]: Fair enough .. I don't suggest otherwise .. What I was thinking, and apologies if I was unclear, is that things be cleared through an exchange, between both chairs as you suggest, seeking confirmation on what was conveyed and clarification on what was not, before issuing a statement .. My thinking was that this may lead to a more positive statement at the end which resolves issues, hold the Board committed as per their response and puts everyone on the same page .. So I believe it's just a matter of switching the currently suggested order, which is issuing a statement, then seeking clarification .. But as I mentioned earlier I can live with the initial proposal too if it enjoys more support .. - I don't see any problem in repetition: if the full Board supports the position expressed by the Chair of one of its committees (BGC here), it will have no problem agreeing to the Board Chair replying to the ICG Chair, using the same terms. [MI]: I fully agree .. but my point was that this may not answer the unclear points identified by Keith (about staff) and Patrik (about numbers & protocol parameters) .. Naturally, my remarks above do not in any constitute a criticism of any individual on the ICANN Board; I just think that proper process contributes to clarity and, ultimately, to accountability. [MI]: I believe they are all fair points .. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Mohamed El Bashir" , "Keith Drazek" Cc: "ICG" Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 09:09:24 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Dear All .. I was not against issuing a statement at the beginning, but after reading Bruce's email, shared by Alissa, I believe it already responds to many of the points we want to make .. So if we are still to issue a statement, I believe it should be a bit different and somehow acknowledge the positive response provided (after seeking clarification on any unclear points of course) .. At the end, I would go by the group's decision but allow me to explain further my point .. - The statement already confirms that the o Board supports the community processes o ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms o Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process o Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing - Unclear points o Whether the statement is made only on behalf of the Board or includes ICANN staff as well is still unclear; as rightly pointed out by Keith, Patrik and others .. It's interesting that the statement refers once to ICANN rather than ICANN Board .. I'm not sure whether this is intended or not .. But in all cases, we should explicitly ask the question and I believe Keith has already posed this question on the CCWG-ACCT mailing list .. o On Patrik's point " it also only talk about the by ICANN run processes (i.e. the CWG and CCWG, and not the other OCs for numbers and protocols) " .. Frankly I did not have the same impression, the first para refers to " community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability " which I thought would normally cover all OC processes including protocols and numbers .. the second para refers to " the various transition proposals, " which again I thought to include proposals submitted by protocols and numbers .. the 3 rd para refers only to " recent reports from the CWG and CCWG ", which I read as referencing the drafts currently open for public comment .. But again I see no harm from explicitly posing this question .. I have the feeling that posting the statement as initially discussed: - May bring us again the same response already submitted by Broad - We may not receive the required clarification on the above 2 unclear points - And may sound as if we were not informed about the Board's response So my suggestion is to: - Seek explicit clarification on the above 2 points and others, if any .. This could be done over email, through Broad liaison or any other appropriate means - Issue a statement that would re-iterate our principles and acknowledge the Board's confirmation on: ….. a list of what has been confirmed (hopefully all issues) Apologies for the long email and for not being so helpful in moving things forward but the Board's response has just been issued and circulated .. Happy to discuss further and equally happy to go by the group's decision should it end to be different .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mohamed El Bashir Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:49 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals + Keith, we still need to issue our statement . Kind Regards, Mohamed On 7 May 2015, at 07:21, Drazek, Keith < kdrazek at verisign.com > wrote: Hi Narelle, In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't. Regards, Keith On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark < narelle.clark at accan.org.au > wrote: Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us? Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has? Narelle From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au > Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT To: " accountability-cross-community at icann.org " < accountability-cross-community at icann.org > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Thu May 7 15:29:06 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 15:29:06 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: A very carefully worded response, which raises deep concern on my part. Bruce does _not_ directly reject the statement that the board will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor. There is instead vague wording about how they accept the need for “fall back mechanisms” and the need to “document processes for handling any failures.” I was looking for something more like: “no one ever said that,” or “that statement does not represent the board position and we have muzzled the person who said it,” or “we dissociate ourselves from that statement.” --MM Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu May 7 17:27:46 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:27:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <110A4CBB-6F2C-486C-BF4E-FAC56FB73205@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in><00ED79E8-7777-4BDE-B19D-5B2298545D81@gmail.com> <110A4CBB-6F2C-486C-BF4E-FAC56FB73205@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Ok to the text. Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:35 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements Hi Kavouss, Sure, but rather than use singular pronouns I’d like to use plural pronouns for the ICG since as a group we have an interest in the response, e.g.: -- Dear Steve, The ICG _has noted that_ it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. _You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings._ Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -- On May 6, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Alissa > Thank you again for your efforts > If everybody agrees with the course of action that you proposed I would > join the consensus to be emerged that you send the message on behalf of > ICG but with the introductory words that I have suggested as well as with > the closing phrase that I did suggest . These suggestions would in no way > change the thrust and objectives of your recent edits > Regards > Kavousd > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 6 May 2015, at 17:10, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> I’d like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to >> contracting/agreements. Below I’ve included the text of the statement to >> be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. >> I’ve seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about >> whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I’d >> like to make a consensus call before proceeding. >> >> Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate >> whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email >> below. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >> Statement: >> -------------- >> >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition >> proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN >> concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for >> in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has >> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested >> parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and >> transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions >> about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with >> contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA >> functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the >> proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as >> early as possible. >> >> >> >> Email to Steve Crocker: >> ------------------------------- >> >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if >> ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at >> . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in >> any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the >> ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu May 7 17:41:49 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:41:49 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB509@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <2A683F30-7FFE-4CA7-9060-949C099E266C@gmail.com> Alissa I do not agree with the use of Capital letters. Pls use starboard lower case without highlighting any part Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 7 May 2015, at 06:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Hi Narelle, > > I have no problem with most of these changes, although I hope we can limit the wordsmithing at this point since otherwise it will be difficult to close on this. I have one comment below, however. > >> On May 6, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: >> >> Alissa, all >> I offer some wordsmithing as per below. I have used capitals used in order to delineate from the previous text, and I ask that you please revert to lower case before sending. Note I have deleted a redundant 'particularly' as something is either crucial or not... >> >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, THE ICG NOTES THAT operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their RESPECTIVE transition proposals. >> >> The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties WILL express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently AND within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ANY FINAL PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER SUPPORT, > > Are you referencing some specific principle here (i.e., one of the NTIA criteria)? Or just multistakeholder support generally? > > Thanks, > Alissa > >> it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> >> Regards >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 1:11 AM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements >> >> I'd like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I've included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I've seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I'd like to make a consensus call before proceeding. >> >> Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >> Statement: >> -------------- >> >> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> >> >> >> Email to Steve Crocker: >> ------------------------------- >> >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From housley at vigilsec.com Thu May 7 17:41:34 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:41:34 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB539@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <905C2FEE-58B0-43E6-85CE-F11DB28BCC70@vigilsec.com> I support Alissa's proposal to issue a Statement, and send a letter to the Chair of the ICANN Board on behalf of the ICG. I support Narelle's proposed modification to the text. Russ ----- Mail original ----- De: "Narelle Clark" À: "Alissa Cooper" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 08:21:01 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements Yes, I am specifically referencing the NTIA criteria. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 2:38 PM To: Narelle Clark Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements Hi Narelle, I have no problem with most of these changes, although I hope we can limit the wordsmithing at this point since otherwise it will be difficult to close on this. I have one comment below, however. On May 6, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > Alissa, all > I offer some wordsmithing as per below. I have used capitals used in order to delineate from the previous text, and I ask that you please revert to lower case before sending. Note I have deleted a redundant 'particularly' as something is either crucial or not... > > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, THE ICG NOTES THAT operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their RESPECTIVE transition proposals. > > The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties WILL express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently AND within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ANY FINAL PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER SUPPORT, Are you referencing some specific principle here (i.e., one of the NTIA criteria)? Or just multistakeholder support generally? Thanks, Alissa > it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > Regards > > > Narelle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 1:11 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements > > I'd like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I've included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I've seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I'd like to make a consensus call before proceeding. > > Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu May 7 17:44:08 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:44:08 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB509@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB509@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <8A64B92D-1E50-4B95-8432-5750FE5AE05F@gmail.com> Dear Narelle Dear Alissa Dear All I do not agree with capital letter used in your proposal regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 7 May 2015, at 05:11, Narelle Clark wrote: > > Alissa, all > I offer some wordsmithing as per below. I have used capitals used in order to delineate from the previous text, and I ask that you please revert to lower case before sending. Note I have deleted a redundant 'particularly' as something is either crucial or not... > > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, THE ICG NOTES THAT operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their RESPECTIVE transition proposals. > > The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties WILL express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently AND within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ANY FINAL PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER SUPPORT, it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > Regards > > > Narelle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 1:11 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements > > I'd like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I've included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I've seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I'd like to make a consensus call before proceeding. > > Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu May 7 18:47:40 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 14:47:40 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals In-Reply-To: References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F1C49D3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <115FB08D-6CF9-4C07-BBF0-55385A1C865F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <14E26155-85BC-497A-BAB4-8681F17B8097@LStAmour.org> In addition to the comments already raised, I find it particularly concerning that Bruce includes that quote but then does not address it more directly. It certainly seems as if his intent WAS to address it, so the very careful wording is "unexpected". Also, it would have been nice to see more support for the OC's rights to determine appropriate fall-back mechanisms (these are the communities, along with "Internet users" that rely on them after all), and there are plenty of opportunities (for ICANN) to help improve them if they are found wanting. Lynn PS. I feel like the ICG has been put on notice as well, but maybe it has just been too long a day. On May 7, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > A very carefully worded response, which raises deep concern on my part. > > Bruce does _not_ directly reject the statement that the board will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor. There is instead vague wording about how they accept the need for “fall back mechanisms” and the need to “document processes for handling any failures.” > > I was looking for something more like: “no one ever said that,” or “that statement does not represent the board position and we have muzzled the person who said it,” or “we dissociate ourselves from that statement.” > > --MM > > Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists: > > > "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity." > > The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. > > The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. > > The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu May 7 19:34:46 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 12:34:46 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <9F2EE954-07E3-4DFB-A437-7C0AE768751D@cooperw.in> Current text for both the statement and the email are below. These include the edits suggested by Narelle, Kavouss, and Jean-Jacques. Thanks to all who have responded to the consensus call already. I think given the remaining open questions raised in the other thread regarding Bruce’s recent email, there are still good reasons for us to publish the statement and send the email. We can always publish a follow-up statement after we receive a response if we have more to say. Statement: -------------- ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, the ICG notes that operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their respective transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties will express their opinions about the transition proposals openly, transparently, and within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. In order to ensure that any final proposal complies with the principle of multistakeholder support, it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. Email to Steve Crocker: ------------------------------- Dear Steve, The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu May 7 19:41:07 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:41:07 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <9F2EE954-07E3-4DFB-A437-7C0AE768751D@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> <9F2EE954-07E3-4DFB-A437-7C0AE768751D@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Alissa. The text is generalléy meets the concerns of everybody thus could sent today Regards Kavouss 2015-05-07 21:34 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > Current text for both the statement and the email are below. These include > the edits suggested by Narelle, Kavouss, and Jean-Jacques. Thanks to all > who have responded to the consensus call already. > > I think given the remaining open questions raised in the other thread > regarding Bruce’s recent email, there are still good reasons for us to > publish the statement and send the email. We can always publish a follow-up > statement after we receive a response if we have more to say. > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition > proceeds, the ICG notes that operational communities have begun discussions > with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements > called for in their respective transition proposals. > > The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition > process -- that all interested parties will express their opinions about > the transition proposals openly, transparently, and within the community > processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and > mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the > communities and the IANA functions operator. In order to ensure that any > final proposal complies with the principle of multistakeholder support, it > is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared > within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process > if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at > . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in > any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the > ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested > to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu May 7 19:58:21 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 12:58:21 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion. Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition: 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. 3. Implementation of the proposal. The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG. The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response. We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment . It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54. I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them. Thanks, Alissa — Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline: - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on the full combined proposal. - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting during the second week of September. - ICANN 54 is October 18-22. On May 6, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Fiona Alexander >> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" >> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >> >> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. >> >> Fiona >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Fiona M. Alexander >> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >> (202) 482-1866 >> www.ntia.doc.gov >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 11935 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu May 7 20:35:55 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 16:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <9F2EE954-07E3-4DFB-A437-7C0AE768751D@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> <9F2EE954-07E3-4DFB-A437-7C0AE768751D@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Hi Alissa, agree with sending this. Thanks for all your efforts sheparding this. Lynn On May 7, 2015, at 3:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Current text for both the statement and the email are below. These include the edits suggested by Narelle, Kavouss, and Jean-Jacques. Thanks to all who have responded to the consensus call already. > > I think given the remaining open questions raised in the other thread regarding Bruce’s recent email, there are still good reasons for us to publish the statement and send the email. We can always publish a follow-up statement after we receive a response if we have more to say. > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, the ICG notes that operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their respective transition proposals. > > The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties will express their opinions about the transition proposals openly, transparently, and within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. In order to ensure that any final proposal complies with the principle of multistakeholder support, it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu May 7 21:03:31 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:03:31 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: Alissa and Colleagues: With regard to CCWG-Accountability: Did you discuss their timeline for producing a final report (Task 1) or implementation of their recommendations (Task 3)? Because I believe the latter could be a much larger/longer element of work. Thanks- J. From: Alissa Cooper > Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 14:58 To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. First, I think it's important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion. Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition: 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. 3. Implementation of the proposal. The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months' time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG. The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry's letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response. We've also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment . It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54. I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them. Thanks, Alissa - Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline: - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on the full combined proposal. - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting during the second week of September. - ICANN 54 is October 18-22. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu May 7 21:37:17 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 23:37:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: Alissa, Thank you very much putting these initial thoughts to gether for internal consultation within the ICG I wish to comment on each paragraph of your intial thoughts as follows 1. Introductory paragraph *" I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process*. " Comments TKS 2. First Paragraph *"First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion"* *.* Comments Yes but without any NOTE from ICG i.e. each operational community will take the relevant part of the NTIA statement to its community and come back to ICG with comment, if any 3. Second Paragraph *«Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition:" * Comments * YES*, We need to discuss it among ourselves, first through the mailng linst and then with one or two conference call( s) *Subparagraph 3.1,3 2 and 3 3 1. Finalization of the transition proposal.* *2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. 3. Implementation of the proposal.* Comments Yes, to be carefully examined and analized 4. Third Paragraph * “The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is* *especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG.” * Comments Yes , 5. Fourth Paragraph “The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1”. Comments With whom? .It is expected and in fact necessary that all of us be involved in the discussion “ *We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox <**https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsjrybo577ycrhe/TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx?dl=0 **> is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. “* Comments It is a very optimistic view, I suggest we indicate that, we should undevour to the best of our ability to *conclude our process by the end of October and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 toward the end of November * Consequently we need to adjust the timeline and indicate that the timeline is an initial planning time management which will be periodically reviewed at the forthcoming ICG virtual or physical meetings 6. Fifth Paragraph *“if the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response.”* Comments Yes Since everything till after ICANN 53 is internal , we will review and adjust the timeline. 7.Sixth Paragraph *“We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment <* *https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en* *>. It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54”.* Comments The CCWG timeline is currently a gestimate as it very much depends on the comment received by CWG and impact on that on the CCWG activities as well as comments received by CCWG by beginning of June and incorporation of thaose in the second draft and results of debate at ICANN 53. *7*. last paragraph *“I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.”* Comments Yes .In fact w*e will certainly also have time for this on our next calls and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.”* Additional Comments I understand that you have referred to one single public commenting period I think it is not sufficient as we need to have two public comments period, this issue was discussed at Singapore meeting and there was general agreement on that. Please kindly note that we MUST AVOID sending something to ICANN / NTIA which does not have broad support of the community. This fact has been emphasized in NTIA announcement and reiterated by Larry at various occasions *Regards* *Kavouss * 2015-05-07 21:58 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we > received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the > transition process. > > First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent > have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best > way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their > own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for > incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we > may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my > suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we > can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a > timely fashion. > > Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is > something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, > there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition: > > 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. > 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. > 3. Implementation of the proposal. > > The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. > The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering > their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities > are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a > couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed > across affected and interested parts of the USG. > > The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if > we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to > conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for > forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and > in Dropbox < > https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsjrybo577ycrhe/TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx?dl=0> > is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. > > If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require > further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip > beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of > course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so > by that time we will have more current information about the status of the > names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own > public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we > likely want to reflect in our response. > > We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their > timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently > released for public comment < > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en>. > It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that > both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around > ICANN 54. > > I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the > list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in > Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > — > > Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline: > > - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on > the full combined proposal. > - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting > during the second week of September. > - ICANN 54 is October 18-22. > > > > On May 6, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Fiona Alexander > *Subject: **Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship > Transition* > *Date: *May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT > *To: *"Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" < > paf at frobbit.se>, "mbashir at mbash.net" > *Cc: *Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" > > > Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the > ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to > the CCWG. > > Fiona > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Fiona M. Alexander > Associate Administrator for International Affairs > National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > (202) 482-1866 > www.ntia.doc.gov > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xl at cnnic.cn Fri May 8 05:06:23 2015 From: xl at cnnic.cn (Xiaodong Lee) Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 13:06:23 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle Poll for ICG Teleconference Call on May 19 (Tue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Yannis, I will be on travel at that time, once I finalize my schedule I will try to allocate time to join. Regards, Prof. Xiaodong Lee CEO, CNNIC >Dear ICG Members, > >The chairs would like to schedule a call on May 19 (Tue) to discuss the >pre-assessment of the CWG proposal and/or the statement on contracting. > >Please kindly filled out the below doodle poll with time slots between >19:00 - 22:00 UTC. >http://doodle.com/3946p3yya6zkgp3p > >Appreciate your response by May 12 (Tue). > >Thank you very much. > >Best Regards, >Yannis Li >ICG Secretariat > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Fri May 8 09:45:24 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 11:45:24 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] NTIA letter to ICG and CCWG In-Reply-To: <63D8654C-8E6A-4B06-AA1F-F10A8EA201B9@gmail.com> References: <1430662483252.96375@globalstudies.gu.se> <554889A5.9070201@afnic.fr> <09de01d088ec$757055a0$605100e0$@redbranchconsulting.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95497FA3AD@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <63D8654C-8E6A-4B06-AA1F-F10A8EA201B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <151444CC08EE40F6B0A61C9C03F669C5@WUKPC> Colleagues, I’d like to transfer this discussion going on the CCWG list to our group as well. If coordination between the groups mentioned is going to take off I wonder whether IANAPLAN and CRISP shouldn’t be involved as well. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 8:55 AM To: WUKnoben Cc: Drazek, Keith ; Paul Rosenzweig ; Roelof Meijer ; mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr ; mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org ; Lise Fuhr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near finaldraft proposal I agree with Keith. This is a matter required involvement of those entities/ persons Keith mentioned .I and Keith could attend that call as ICG Liaison since we know the details of CCWG and CWG. Martin and few others could be involved Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 7 May 2015, at 21:51, WUKnoben wrote: I agree. We should undertake this effort very soon as time is short. Keith, why wouldn’t you – as ICG liaison to the CCWG – bring this to the ICG table? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:12 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig ; 'Roelof Meijer' ; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr ; accountability-cross-community at icann.org Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near finaldraft proposal I think Paul’s assessment is accurate. We, the community, will need to develop and recommend a consolidated timeline addressing all of the work-streams and dependencies (CWG, CCWG, ICG, ICANN Board, NTIA) to include the implementation phase described by Secretary Strickling. To begin such an effort, I’d like to suggest a coordination meeting of the Co-Chairs of the CWG, CCWG and ICG, plus the ICANN Board liaisons from all 3 groups. Perhaps we should also request clarification from NTIA regarding the time needed for their review and approval process, based on what they’ve seen so far from the community. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 1:37 PM To: 'Roelof Meijer'; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community at icann.org Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal I am quite sure Roelof that Strickling means exactly what you said. I think he would be surprised that you would read it the other way since I think he would see the “ending of the contract” as the last day on which it is in effect – which would either be Sept 30 or the date to which the contract is extended. I am also pretty sure that what they are looking for is a realistic estimate so that they only have to do one single extension – not 3 months now and then 3 more and …. In other words he is asking “how long do you REALLY need?” I will note as well the repeat of the requirement for “implementation” – so the question is not “will we approve the changes in Dublin?” which is, to my mind at least, a relatively realistic expectation but rather “how long after the changes are approved in Dublin will it take for them to be implemented?” – that is the Bylaws changed; and IRP set up; and whatever structrures the CCWG and the CWG call for organized and the functions transferred etc. That seems to me like a much harder and more indefinite question to answer Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl] Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:17 AM To: Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community at icann.org Cc: Lise Fuhr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal What surprises me, is that the letter leaves room for (mis)interpretation on the essential content: “We have never viewed 30 September as a deadline, but have stated from the beginning of this process that the transition planning should proceed to whatever schedule the community sets” is clear and in line with what Mr. Strickling has publicly stated numerous times. It suggests implicitely that the contract will be extended if necessary to fit “whatever schedule the community sets”. However, the bit “..please bear in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified … will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” is not so clear. We probably all assume that “the ending of the contract” refers to either 30 September 2015 or the end date of an (or the last of multiple) extension(s). That is probably a safe assumption, but I fail to understand why Mr. Strickling did not insert a sentence to make that absolutely clear to anyone. Something like: “…prior to 30 September or the date to which the NTIA will extend the present contract to fit the schedule set by the community”. Best, Roelof From: Mathieu Weill Reply-To: Mathieu Weill Date: dinsdag 5 mei 2015 11:13 To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal Dear Colleagues, FYI attached is the feedback we have received from Jan Aart Scholte, our independent Advisor. Jan raises some very useful points for our further deliberations. I would suggest we count this as "public comment input #1" and add this to our upcoming public comment analysis tool. Best Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal Date : Sun, 3 May 2015 14:14:43 +0000 De : Jan Aart Scholte mailto:jan.scholte at globalstudies.gu.se Pour : Adam Peake mailto:adam.peake at icann.org, CCWG-Advisors mailto:ccwg-advisors at icann.org Dear All Attached the promised more substantive comments for the CCWG on the draft proposal of 1 May 2015. Really impressive that things have got this far already, though as ever there can be suggestions for going further. Greetings Jan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon May 11 12:36:50 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 14:36:50 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG draft proposal; pre-assessment Message-ID: <6829CC2CABEF43D4AEFB0FA8285E0ABF@WUKPC> All, to start rolling the ball please find attached my first thoughts regarding a pre-assessment of the CWG proposal which is out for public comment. Any additional evaluations, comments etc. are welcome. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: names-proposal-preassessment-WUK_draft-v0.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52736 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Mon May 11 16:08:06 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 02:08:06 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: Dear Alissa and all, CRISP members have pointed out to me that although USG advised the CWG about this letter (in public email from Ashley Heineman to the CWG chairs), they did not advise CRISP directly, and apparently not the IETF either. I suppose that the NTIA’s request is now public and it is clear enough, but is there a need for any specific request or further details from the IGC to the three communities? If not, then as one of the responsible ICG members, I will check with the CRISP team that the request is clear enough and whether they will be able to comply. I assume that others will look after the other 2 communities, to the extent that that is needed! Thanks, Paul. On 7 May 2015, at 8:05, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Fiona Alexander >> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" >> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >> >> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. >> >> Fiona >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Fiona M. Alexander >> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >> (202) 482-1866 >> www.ntia.doc.gov >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3582 bytes Desc: S/MIME digital signature URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon May 11 17:25:59 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 19:25:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: Dear Paul, Thank you for message. I do not think that we should get into another boring round of discussion to write to NTIA WHY THEY HAVE NOT SENT YOU NOR IETF. Pls take any individual action you deem appropriate without involving ICG.However, the communication is publicly available to everybody. Regards Kavouss 2015-05-11 18:08 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson : > Dear Alissa and all, > > CRISP members have pointed out to me that although USG advised the CWG > about this letter (in public email from Ashley Heineman to the CWG chairs), > they did not advise CRISP directly, and apparently not the IETF either. > > I suppose that the NTIA’s request is now public and it is clear enough, > but is there a need for any specific request or further details from the > IGC to the three communities? > > If not, then as one of the responsible ICG members, I will check with the > CRISP team that the request is clear enough and whether they will be able > to comply. I assume that others will look after the other 2 communities, > to the extent that that is needed! > > Thanks, > > Paul. > > > > > On 7 May 2015, at 8:05, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Fiona Alexander > >> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > >> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT > >> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" < > paf at frobbit.se>, "mbashir at mbash.net" > >> Cc: Larry Strickling , " > fadi.chehade at icann.org" > >> > >> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to > the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent > to the CCWG. > >> > >> Fiona > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Fiona M. Alexander > >> Associate Administrator for International Affairs > >> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > >> (202) 482-1866 > >> www.ntia.doc.gov > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 11 17:50:26 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 10:50:26 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements In-Reply-To: <9F2EE954-07E3-4DFB-A437-7C0AE768751D@cooperw.in> References: <61B8ECB4-151F-4660-9D54-5697FE069B5C@cooperw.in> <9F2EE954-07E3-4DFB-A437-7C0AE768751D@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <6D341F45-3384-4230-AC6D-EECE7FF53FF6@cooperw.in> Thanks all for your comments on this. I believe we have consensus to move forward. The secretariat will post the statement and then I will email Steve. Alissa On May 7, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Current text for both the statement and the email are below. These include the edits suggested by Narelle, Kavouss, and Jean-Jacques. Thanks to all who have responded to the consensus call already. > > I think given the remaining open questions raised in the other thread regarding Bruce’s recent email, there are still good reasons for us to publish the statement and send the email. We can always publish a follow-up statement after we receive a response if we have more to say. > > > Statement: > -------------- > > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > > As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, the ICG notes that operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their respective transition proposals. > > The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties will express their opinions about the transition proposals openly, transparently, and within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. In order to ensure that any final proposal complies with the principle of multistakeholder support, it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. > > > > Email to Steve Crocker: > ------------------------------- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. > > Thanks, > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 11 18:15:18 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 11:15:18 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: <662285E7-4A79-4A6A-A1CF-7E777E1C0BC4@cooperw.in> Hi Paul, As I mentioned in my initial response thoughts for this, I think the most efficient way forward would be for you and Alan to ask the numbers community for input about time needed for implementation of the numbers proposal, and for myself/Jari/Russ/Lynn to do the same on the IETF side, and to have that input brought back into the ICG. Then, as Wolf-Ulrich suggested, we can marry that input with the implementation timelines from the CWG/CCWG and the ICG’s proposal finalization timeline to come up with one consolidated timeline. Do you think the request is clear enough for you to take it to the numbers community? Thanks, Alissa On May 11, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Dear Alissa and all, > > CRISP members have pointed out to me that although USG advised the CWG about this letter (in public email from Ashley Heineman to the CWG chairs), they did not advise CRISP directly, and apparently not the IETF either. > > I suppose that the NTIA’s request is now public and it is clear enough, but is there a need for any specific request or further details from the IGC to the three communities? > > If not, then as one of the responsible ICG members, I will check with the CRISP team that the request is clear enough and whether they will be able to comply. I assume that others will look after the other 2 communities, to the extent that that is needed! > > Thanks, > > Paul. > > > > > On 7 May 2015, at 8:05, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Fiona Alexander >>> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >>> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >>> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" >>> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >>> >>> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. >>> >>> Fiona >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Fiona M. Alexander >>> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >>> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >>> (202) 482-1866 >>> www.ntia.doc.gov >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 11 19:53:31 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:53:31 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: <37E90809-B81F-4745-B1C3-9CB2E071EEA6@cooperw.in> Hi James, On May 7, 2015, at 2:03 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > Alissa and Colleagues: > > With regard to CCWG-Accountability: Did you discuss their timeline for producing a final report (Task 1) or implementation of their recommendations (Task 3)? They have estimates for both in their draft out for public comment. Alissa > Because I believe the latter could be a much larger/longer element of work. > > Thanks— > > J. > > > From: Alissa Cooper > Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 14:58 > To: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition > > I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. > > First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion. > > Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition: > > 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. > 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. > 3. Implementation of the proposal. > > The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG. > > The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. > > If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response. > > We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment . It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54. > > I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > — > > Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline: > > - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on the full combined proposal. > - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting during the second week of September. > - ICANN 54 is October 18-22. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon May 11 21:32:07 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 17:32:07 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Doodle Poll for ICG teleconferences: 27 May and 10 June Message-ID: <04f101d08c31$ef4a6260$cddf2720$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please fill out the following doodle poll to determine the starting times for the following calls (duration of the calls to be determined at a later date): - Wednesday 27 May at around 04:00 UTC - Wednesday 10 June at around 12:00 UTC Doodle poll link: http://doodle.com/v8icbrp3tzkuxm56 Please respond by Monday 18 May, 21:00 UTC, thank you. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Tue May 12 01:33:24 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 11:33:24 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Do you have your signed contract here? Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB74E@ACCAN01.accan.local> Hi Alex If you don't have your signed contract here, I can print a new one off now. Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Suite 4.02 Level 4 55 Mountain St Ultimo NSW 2007 Australia narelle.clark at accan.org.au Ph: 02 9288 4000 Mobile: 0412 297 043 Fax: 02 9288 4019 TTY: 02 9281 5322 Follow us on twitter @ACCAN_AU Sign up for our weekly WebNews Visit our website --------------------------------------------- The information contained in or attached to this message is intended only for the people it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this information is unauthorised and prohibited. This information may be confidential or subject to legal privilege. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and any attachments. The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network does not warrant that the information in this e-mail or any attachments are free from any viruses, defects, errors, interception or interference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue May 12 04:54:28 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 00:54:28 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum Message-ID: <057101d08c6f$bb679290$3236b7b0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The following comments have been posted to the ICG Forum: May 10 - "Numbers community proposal contact points with CWG's Draft IANA Stewardship Transition proposal" from Axel Pawlik http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-May/000000.html Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Tue May 12 06:52:10 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 16:52:10 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Recall: Do you have your signed contract here? Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB7FC@ACCAN01.accan.local> Narelle Clark would like to recall the message, "Do you have your signed contract here?". From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Tue May 12 06:55:31 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 16:55:31 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Ignore my last message RE: Do you have your signed contract here? Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9AB800@ACCAN01.accan.local> All, Please ignore my last message and delete, it was not intended for this forum. If possible could it be removed from the archive. Narelle Clark From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Narelle Clark Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 11:33 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Do you have your signed contract here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 12 15:05:00 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:05:00 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements Message-ID: Dear Steve, The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 12 15:10:47 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:10:47 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG statement on contracts links Message-ID: The ICG Statement on ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements has been posted on the ICG web site here: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-statement-on-contracts-and-other-agreements/ This has also been cross-posted on the ICG social media accounts: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue May 12 17:15:44 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 13:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #16 - Tuesday, 19 May 2015, 21:00-23:00 UTC Message-ID: <010e01d08cd7$48ddb110$da991330$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #16 is scheduled for: **Tuesday, 19 May 2015** at 21:00-23:00 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1PCQN7P Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-sixteenth-conference-call/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room, please let us know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH interpretation services are available for the first 90 minutes for this call. Livestreaming in PT will not be available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda TDB As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thank you! Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 12 18:03:04 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 11:03:04 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements References: <2A05B8EC-3489-4403-84DE-6B107B5EAE86@shinkuro.com> Message-ID: <7A5B35DC-1154-44E1-ACFD-221C2C2C18C1@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Crocker > Subject: Re: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > Date: May 12, 2015 at 8:10:31 AM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" > > Alissa, > > Thanks. I will share your request with the Board and staff and endeavor to get you a response quickly. > > Steve > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 12, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 13 17:33:50 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 13:33:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Doodle polls for upcoming ICG calls Message-ID: <00e101d08da2$fabeefe0$f03ccfa0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, A friendly reminder to respond to the open doodle polls for the upcoming calls as listed below: ICG Calls 17 and 18 (27 May and 8 June, call duration TBD) http://doodle.com/v8icbrp3tzkuxm56 ICG Call 19 (8 July, first call after ICANN Buenos Aires scheduled for 2.5 hours) http://doodle.com/uy3s9acg9abnfu2c A response by Monday 18 May 21:00 UTC is appreciated. Many thanks! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 13 17:36:02 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 13:36:02 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Doodle polls for upcoming ICG calls Message-ID: <00e601d08da3$49860550$dc920ff0$@icgsec.asia> Apologies, ICG Call 18 is scheduled for 10 June, corrected below. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:34 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: Reminder: Doodle polls for upcoming ICG calls Dear All, A friendly reminder to respond to the open doodle polls for the upcoming calls as listed below: ICG Calls 17 and 18 (27 May and 10 June, call duration TBD) http://doodle.com/v8icbrp3tzkuxm56 ICG Call 19 (8 July, first call after ICANN Buenos Aires scheduled for 2.5 hours) http://doodle.com/uy3s9acg9abnfu2c A response by Monday 18 May 21:00 UTC is appreciated. Many thanks! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 13 18:16:32 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 11:16:32 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for May 19 call Message-ID: <6956EAB2-13BB-4FFA-814D-1C33DC2893C3@cooperw.in> Here is a proposed agenda for the May 19 call. We are scheduled for 2 hours but we only have interpreters for the first 90 minutes, so I’ve put the administrative items at the end. (1) Letter to the ICG from the NTIA (Chairs) - 50 minutes (2) CWG pre-assessment (Wolf-Ulrich) - 50 minutes (3) Approval of minutes from April 22 call (Chairs) - 5 minutes (4) Future teleconference and meeting schedule (Chairs) - 10 minutes Alissa From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 13 21:51:14 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 14:51:14 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements References: <2865BC1C-84F2-4965-8271-63F258FABE1E@shinkuro.com> Message-ID: <17EC9029-D44C-47D6-BA4F-99DC3994BC32@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Crocker > Subject: Re: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > Date: May 13, 2015 at 1:36:28 PM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: "Stephen D. Crocker" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, Icann-board ICANN > > Alissa, > > Thanks again for your query. I have copied the statement you referred to so this message contains all of the relevant context. > > Let me make this short and unambiguous. We agree with you. ICANN will make its positions known publicly and we will use the available forms of publication, including the relevant public comment processes. > > We will also file this exchange through the public comment process as well. > > Thanks, > > Steve Crocker, nn behalf of the board and staff of ICANN, > > P.S. I have cc’d internal-cg at ianacg.org, but I noted from my last response that I do not have posting rights. Please do forward. > > > > > > On May 12, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > Copied from https://www.ianacg.org/icg-statement-on-contracts-and-other-agreements/ > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, the ICG notes that operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their respective transition proposals. >> The ICG expects — as it has from the very beginning of the transition process — that all interested parties will express their opinions about the transition proposals openly, transparently, and within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. In order to ensure that any final proposal complies with the principle of multistakeholder support, it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbashir at mbash.net Thu May 14 01:40:29 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 04:40:29 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for May 19 call In-Reply-To: <6956EAB2-13BB-4FFA-814D-1C33DC2893C3@cooperw.in> References: <6956EAB2-13BB-4FFA-814D-1C33DC2893C3@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <1EB5808B-46AF-4B15-8E8C-1947BF11998F@mbash.net> Hi Alissa, It's good agenda, if we received a response from ICANN Board chair to our letter regarding process/contracts then it can be covered in AOB Kind Regards, Mohamed ( Sent by iPhone - apologies for any misspelling ) > On 13 May 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Here is a proposed agenda for the May 19 call. We are scheduled for 2 hours but we only have interpreters for the first 90 minutes, so I’ve put the administrative items at the end. > > (1) Letter to the ICG from the NTIA (Chairs) - 50 minutes > > (2) CWG pre-assessment (Wolf-Ulrich) - 50 minutes > > (3) Approval of minutes from April 22 call (Chairs) - 5 minutes > > (4) Future teleconference and meeting schedule (Chairs) - 10 minutes > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Thu May 14 04:25:45 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 14:25:45 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements In-Reply-To: <7A5B35DC-1154-44E1-ACFD-221C2C2C18C1@cooperw.in> References: <2A05B8EC-3489-4403-84DE-6B107B5EAE86@shinkuro.com> <7A5B35DC-1154-44E1-ACFD-221C2C2C18C1@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Thanks Alissa In case it is not entirely clear how a community member may comment on announcements like this, I want to suggest a standardised footer which could say something like: “If you’d like to comment on this announcement, please visit the _community feedback forum_.” I’d also suggest (to the secretariat) that the website could have a more informative page for the forum, to explain simply what the forum is for, how to subscribe and access the archives (including the old archive). At the moment, the link on the top menu bar just goes to the archive of the new list, which isn’t so helpful. Thanks, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg On 13 May 2015, at 4:03 am, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Steve Crocker >> Subject: Re: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> Date: May 12, 2015 at 8:10:31 AM PDT >> To: Alissa Cooper >> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >> >> Alissa, >> >> Thanks. I will share your request with the Board and staff and endeavor to get you a response quickly. >> >> Steve >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 12, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> Dear Steve, >>> >>> The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3977 bytes Desc: not available URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu May 14 11:13:16 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 11:13:16 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: Dear Alissa .. Apologies for the late reply .. Comments inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:58 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. First, I think it's important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion. [MI]: Agree .. Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition: 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. 3. Implementation of the proposal. The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months' time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG. [MI]: Agree .. but I would also add a 'step 0' which is official submission of the names proposal to the ICG .. Having said that, do we know that the CWG will be able to submit their final final names proposal while the CCWG Stream1 proposal is still under discussion, or should we seek a confirmation or further guidance on that? The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. [MI]: Thanks for your efforts in compiling this .. My memory fails me, have we agreed on one or two public comment periods, at the end of the Singapore meeting? If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry's letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response. [MI]: Fair Enough .. We've also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment . It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54. [MI]: Good .. Though, as highlighted above, I'm not sure whether the shift between the timelines of CWG & CCWG would affect the submission date of the final proposal of the CWG, and consequently the ICG timeline .. I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them. Thanks, Alissa - Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline: - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on the full combined proposal. - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting during the second week of September. - ICANN 54 is October 18-22. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu May 14 11:35:46 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 13:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: Dear All, In the second paragraph of the NTIA LETTER, IT IS STATED Qoute "* ......including the community views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and IMPLEMENT IT after it approved "* Unquote The report of the ICG,among other things mainly depends on the report from CWG which is still in commenting period.. That report ,once finalized is also depends on the activities of CCWG for work stream 1 which is also in public comment period. At the last CCWG CALL, THE TIME LINE FOR THE COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF WORK STREAM 1 was envisaged to be not earlier than July 2016. Moreover, we do not yet know the precise timeline for the completion of CWG REPORT and the exact time that such report will be sent to ICG for review. Taking into account the speific question of NTIA "*how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and IMPLEMENT IT after it approved "* ,ICG needs to discuss and provide its answer, no doubt after the ICANN 53 meeting during which the f2f meeting of ICG will take place. In view of the above, we should have a fairly conservative time line for discussion at our next call as well as f2f meeting As usual, some ICG colleagues are in hurry to send the ICG prioposal to NTIA., I draw the attention of the chair and the managemnet team as well as all distinguished and respectful ciolleagues of ,. 2015-05-14 13:13 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail : > Dear Alissa .. > > Apologies for the late reply .. > > Comments inline below .. > > Kind Regards > > --Manal > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf Of > *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:58 PM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA > Stewardship Transition > > > > I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we > received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the > transition process. > > First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent > have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best > way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their > own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for > incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we > may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my > suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we > can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a > timely fashion. > > [MI]: Agree .. > > > Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is > something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, > there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition: > > 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. > 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. > 3. Implementation of the proposal. > > The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. > The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering > their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities > are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a > couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed > across affected and interested parts of the USG. > > > > [MI]: Agree .. but I would also add a ‘step 0’ which is official > submission of the names proposal to the ICG .. Having said that, do we know > that the CWG will be able to submit their final final names proposal while > the CCWG Stream1 proposal is still under discussion, or should we seek a > confirmation or further guidance on that? > > > The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if > we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to > conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for > forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and > in Dropbox < > https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsjrybo577ycrhe/TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx?dl=0> > is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. > > > > [MI]: Thanks for your efforts in compiling this .. My memory fails me, > have we agreed on one or two public comment periods, at the end of the > Singapore meeting? > > > > If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require > further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip > beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of > course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so > by that time we will have more current information about the status of the > names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own > public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we > likely want to reflect in our response. > > [MI]: Fair Enough .. > > > We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their > timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently > released for public comment < > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en>. > It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that > both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around > ICANN 54. > > > > [MI]: Good .. Though, as highlighted above, I’m not sure whether the shift > between the timelines of CWG & CCWG would affect the submission date of the > final proposal of the CWG, and consequently the ICG timeline .. > > > > I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the > list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in > Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > — > > Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline: > > - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on > the full combined proposal. > - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting > during the second week of September. > - ICANN 54 is October 18-22. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri May 15 14:53:16 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 10:53:16 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: Volume 5: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions, Special Edition on the ICANN Accountability Enhancements Draft Message-ID: <019d01d08f1e$e1064620$a312d260$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Volume 5: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions, Special Edition on the ICANN Accountability Enhancements Draft has been posted and is available here: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-5-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discu ssions-special-edition-on-the-icann-accountability-enhancements-draft Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon May 18 16:36:51 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:36:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: Doodle polls for upcoming ICG calls Message-ID: <00db01d09188$d8e795e0$8ab6c1a0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, A reminder to respond to the open doodle polls if you have not already done so. Responses by 21:00 UTC today are appreciated, thank you. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:34 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: Reminder: Doodle polls for upcoming ICG calls Dear All, A friendly reminder to respond to the open doodle polls for the upcoming calls as listed below: ICG Calls 17 and 18 (27 May and 10 June, call duration TBD) http://doodle.com/v8icbrp3tzkuxm56 ICG Call 19 (8 July, first call after ICANN Buenos Aires scheduled for 2.5 hours) http://doodle.com/uy3s9acg9abnfu2c A response by Monday 18 May 21:00 UTC is appreciated. Many thanks! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon May 18 16:39:09 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:39:09 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG Call #16 - Tuesday, 19 May 2015, 21:00-23:00 UTC Message-ID: <00e001d09189$2b2fbbc0$818f3340$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #16 is scheduled for tomorrow: **Tuesday, 19 May 2015** at 21:00-23:00 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1PCQN7P Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-sixteenth-conference-call/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room, please let us know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH interpretation services are available for the first 90 minutes for this call. Livestreaming in PT will not be available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda proposed by Alissa (1) Letter to the ICG from the NTIA (Chairs) - 50 minutes (2) CWG pre-assessment (Wolf-Ulrich) - 50 minutes (3) Approval of minutes from April 22 call (Chairs) - 5 minutes (4) Future teleconference and meeting schedule (Chairs) - 10 minutes Thank you! Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 18 18:09:19 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 11:09:19 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for May 19 call In-Reply-To: <1EB5808B-46AF-4B15-8E8C-1947BF11998F@mbash.net> References: <6956EAB2-13BB-4FFA-814D-1C33DC2893C3@cooperw.in> <1EB5808B-46AF-4B15-8E8C-1947BF11998F@mbash.net> Message-ID: <3247DB93-656B-421A-AD52-BA6618EA5C2A@cooperw.in> Good point. We have received a response, so we should add this to the agenda: (1) Letter to the ICG from the NTIA (Chairs) - 45 minutes (2) CWG pre-assessment (Wolf-Ulrich) - 45 minutes (3) Response from Steve Crocker regarding ICG statement on contracts - 15 minutes (3) Approval of minutes from April 22 call (Chairs) - 5 minutes (4) Future teleconference and meeting schedule (Chairs) - 10 minutes On May 13, 2015, at 6:40 PM, Mohamed El Bashir wrote: > Hi Alissa, > > It's good agenda, if we received a response from ICANN Board chair to our letter regarding process/contracts then it can be covered in AOB > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > ( Sent by iPhone - apologies for any misspelling ) > > On 13 May 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Here is a proposed agenda for the May 19 call. We are scheduled for 2 hours but we only have interpreters for the first 90 minutes, so I’ve put the administrative items at the end. >> >> (1) Letter to the ICG from the NTIA (Chairs) - 50 minutes >> >> (2) CWG pre-assessment (Wolf-Ulrich) - 50 minutes >> >> (3) Approval of minutes from April 22 call (Chairs) - 5 minutes >> >> (4) Future teleconference and meeting schedule (Chairs) - 10 minutes >> >> Alissa >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 18 18:11:25 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 11:11:25 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: Thanks Kavouss. I agree with your points below. I think one of the key questions for us is whether to do 1 or 2 public comment periods (e.g., comment and reply comment). There is obviously a serious timeline implication depending on what we choose. Alissa On May 7, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Alissa, > Thank you very much putting these initial thoughts to gether for internal consultation within the ICG > I wish to comment on each paragraph of your intial thoughts as follows > 1. Introductory paragraph > > " I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. " > > Comments > > TKS > > 2. First Paragraph > > "First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion" > . > Comments > > Yes but without any NOTE from ICG i.e. each operational community will take the relevant part of the NTIA statement to its community and come back to ICG with comment, if any > > 3. Second Paragraph > > «Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition:" > > Comments > > YES, We need to discuss it among ourselves, first through the mailng linst and then with one or two conference call( s) > > Subparagraph 3.1,3 2 and 3 3 > 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. > 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. > 3. Implementation of the proposal. > > Comments > Yes, to be carefully examined and analized > > 4. Third Paragraph > “The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is > especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG.” > > Comments > Yes , > > 5. Fourth Paragraph > > “The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1”. > > Comments > > With whom? .It is expected and in fact necessary that all of us be involved in the discussion > “ We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. “ > > Comments > It is a very optimistic view, I suggest we indicate that, we should undevour to the best of our ability to conclude our process by the end of October and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 toward the end of November Consequently we need to adjust the timeline and indicate that the timeline is an initial planning time management which will be periodically reviewed at the forthcoming ICG virtual or physical meetings > > 6. Fifth Paragraph > “if the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response.” > > Comments > > Yes > Since everything till after ICANN 53 is internal , we will review and adjust the timeline. > > > > 7.Sixth Paragraph > “We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment . It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54”. > Comments > The CCWG timeline is currently a gestimate as it very much depends on the comment received by CWG and impact on that on the CCWG activities as well as comments received by CCWG by beginning of June and incorporation of thaose in the second draft and results of debate at ICANN 53. > > 7. last paragraph > > “I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.” > > Comments > > Yes .In fact we will certainly also have time for this on our next calls and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them.” > > Additional Comments > I understand that you have referred to one single public commenting period > I think it is not sufficient as we need to have two public comments period, this issue was discussed at Singapore meeting and there was general agreement on that. > Please kindly note that we MUST AVOID sending something to ICANN / NTIA which does not have broad support of the community. This fact has been emphasized in NTIA announcement and reiterated by Larry at various occasions > > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-05-07 21:58 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper : > I wanted to offer some initial thoughts in response to the letter we received from Larry Strickling concerning status and timeframes for the transition process. > > First, I think it’s important that the communities that we all represent have an opportunity to provide their views on this topic. I think the best way to solicit this input would be for ICG members to consult within their own communities as they see fit and bring that input back to the ICG for incorporation into our response. Depending on what that input looks like we may decide that some other arrangement makes sense, but that is my suggestion at the outset for how to proceed. If people agree with that we can try to establish some deadlines so that we can get a response back in a timely fashion. > > Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition: > > 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. > 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. > 3. Implementation of the proposal. > > The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG. > > The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. > > If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response. > > We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment . It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54. > > I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > — > > Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline: > > - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on the full combined proposal. > - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting during the second week of September. > - ICANN 54 is October 18-22. > > > > On May 6, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Fiona Alexander >>> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition >>> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >>> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" >>> Cc: Larry Strickling , "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >>> >>> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter has been sent to the CCWG. >>> >>> Fiona >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Fiona M. Alexander >>> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >>> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >>> (202) 482-1866 >>> www.ntia.doc.gov >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon May 18 18:14:20 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 11:14:20 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID: <6E77C4DE-4333-4BB3-B86C-8E09B9ACEF38@cooperw.in> Hi Manal, Responses below. On May 14, 2015, at 4:13 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Of course, the ICG has its own distinct role and timing, and that is something we can discuss amongst ourselves. As mentioned in the letter, there are, broadly speaking, three tasks remaining with the transition: > > 1. Finalization of the transition proposal. > 2. NTIA/USG assessment and approval of the proposal. > 3. Implementation of the proposal. > > The ICG and the communities we all represent have to take care of task 1. The communities or parts thereof may be involved in task 3, so gathering their input is especially important there. Neither we nor the communities are involved in task 2, but I think we can safely assume it will occupy a couple months’ time at minimum, accounting for the proposal to be reviewed across affected and interested parts of the USG. > > [MI]: Agree .. but I would also add a ‘step 0’ which is official submission of the names proposal to the ICG .. Having said that, do we know that the CWG will be able to submit their final final names proposal while the CCWG Stream1 proposal is still under discussion, or should we seek a confirmation or further guidance on that? I believe the plan is still for the CWG to be able to submit its proposal pending some further refinements in the CCWG, but we will have more clarity on that when we get closer to Buenos Aires. > > The chairs have discussed estimated timing for task 1. We believe that if we receive the CWG names proposal at or just after ICANN 53, we can aim to conclude our process and deliver the proposal to the ICANN Board for forwarding to NTIA by the conclusion of ICANN 54 in October. Attached and in Dropbox is an updated version of our timeline showing how we could accomplish this. > > [MI]: Thanks for your efforts in compiling this .. My memory fails me, have we agreed on one or two public comment periods, at the end of the Singapore meeting? I don’t think we have committed one way or the other yet. We originally talked about having 2 comment periods, but then discussed having 1 and I don’t think we ever settled either way. Alissa > > If the names proposal slips, or if public comments that we solicit require further extensive discussion in the communities, then our timing will slip beyond ICANN 54. How long that slippage could be is difficult to predict of course. Larry’s letter requests a response from us by the end of June, so by that time we will have more current information about the status of the names proposal, but there will still be some uncertainty about what our own public comment process will generate. That uncertainty is something we likely want to reflect in our response. > > [MI]: Fair Enough .. > > We’ve also been in touch with the chairs of the CCWG to understand their timing. Their current timeline is available in the draft they recently released for public comment . It aligns well with the attached proposed update to our timeline in that both groups would conclude their transition-relevant work at or around ICANN 54. > > [MI]: Good .. Though, as highlighted above, I’m not sure whether the shift between the timelines of CWG & CCWG would affect the submission date of the final proposal of the CWG, and consequently the ICG timeline .. > > I wanted to sketch this out so that we can get discussion going on the list. We will certainly also have time for this on our next call and in Buenos Aires but please share thoughts on the list if you have them. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > — > > Couple of notes regarding the updated timeline: > > - The timeline includes an ICANN-standard 40-day public comment period on the full combined proposal. > - The chairs are looking into the possibility of having an ICG F2F meeting during the second week of September. > - ICANN 54 is October 18-22. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon May 18 20:06:49 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:06:49 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG web site feedback [WAS RE: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements] Message-ID: <015801d091a6$3061d160$91257420$@icgsec.asia> Dear Paul, Thank you for the feedback and suggestions on the ICG web site. Per Alissa's previous request, we have changed the 'Recent Developments' section on the homepage (https://www.ianacg.org/) show all ICG announcements except ICG Call scheduling - the May 1 announcement links to the process document for handling comments submitted to the ICG Forum, and both the new and old archives (see announcement here: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-update-regarding-community-comments-and -the-icg-forum/). All ICG documents are also available on the 'Documents' page here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-documents/. Per original specifications, the ICG forum is not open for subscription - although if the ICG now wishes to change this, we can certainly accommodate this request. In addition, the email for submitting comments to the ICG Forum has now also been added to the Contact page here: https://www.ianacg.org/contact/. We have also updated the ICG forum description here: http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/icg-forum_ianacg.org using some language from the ICG RFP. This description can be changed, please do let us know. Lastly, we are looking at a few more options on making the ICG Forum more accessible, we will share further details when available. Please continue to give us feedback so we may improve the usability of the ICG web site. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:26 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements Thanks Alissa In case it is not entirely clear how a community member may comment on announcements like this, I want to suggest a standardised footer which could say something like: "If you'd like to comment on this announcement, please visit the _community feedback forum_." I'd also suggest (to the secretariat) that the website could have a more informative page for the forum, to explain simply what the forum is for, how to subscribe and access the archives (including the old archive). At the moment, the link on the top menu bar just goes to the archive of the new list, which isn't so helpful. Thanks, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg On 13 May 2015, at 4:03 am, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Steve Crocker >> Subject: Re: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >> Date: May 12, 2015 at 8:10:31 AM PDT >> To: Alissa Cooper >> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >> >> Alissa, >> >> Thanks. I will share your request with the Board and staff and endeavor to get you a response quickly. >> >> Steve >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 12, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> Dear Steve, >>> >>> The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From pwilson at apnic.net Mon May 18 21:20:15 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:20:15 -0500 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG web site feedback [WAS RE: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements] In-Reply-To: <015801d091a6$3061d160$91257420$@icgsec.asia> References: <015801d091a6$3061d160$91257420$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <7DF4C575-15DE-4E9B-9A02-04D4A1406246@apnic.net> Thanks Jennifer. On 18 May 2015 15:06:49 GMT-05:00, Jennifer Chung wrote: >Dear Paul, > >Thank you for the feedback and suggestions on the ICG web site. > >Per Alissa's previous request, we have changed the 'Recent >Developments' >section on the homepage (https://www.ianacg.org/) show all ICG >announcements >except ICG Call scheduling - the May 1 announcement links to the >process >document for handling comments submitted to the ICG Forum, and both the >new >and old archives (see announcement here: >https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-update-regarding-community-comments-and >-the-icg-forum/). All ICG documents are also available on the >'Documents' >page here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-documents/. > >Per original specifications, the ICG forum is not open for subscription >- >although if the ICG now wishes to change this, we can certainly >accommodate >this request. In addition, the email for submitting comments to the >ICG >Forum has now also been added to the Contact page here: >https://www.ianacg.org/contact/. > >We have also updated the ICG forum description here: >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/icg-forum_ianacg.org using some >language from the ICG RFP. This description can be changed, please do >let >us know. > >Lastly, we are looking at a few more options on making the ICG Forum >more >accessible, we will share further details when available. > >Please continue to give us feedback so we may improve the usability of >the >ICG web site. > >Best Regards, > >Jennifer > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >Paul >Wilson >Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:26 AM >To: Alissa Cooper >Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Statement on Contracts and Other >Agreements > >Thanks Alissa > >In case it is not entirely clear how a community member may comment on >announcements like this, I want to suggest a standardised footer which >could >say something like: > >"If you'd like to comment on this announcement, please visit the >_community >feedback forum_." > > >I'd also suggest (to the secretariat) that the website could have a >more >informative page for the forum, to explain simply what the forum is >for, how >to subscribe and access the archives (including the old archive). At >the >moment, the link on the top menu bar just goes to the archive of the >new >list, which isn't so helpful. > >Thanks, > >Paul. > >________________________________________________________________________ >Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >dg at apnic.net >http://www.apnic.net >@apnicdg > > > >On 13 May 2015, at 4:03 am, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Steve Crocker >>> Subject: Re: ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements >>> Date: May 12, 2015 at 8:10:31 AM PDT >>> To: Alissa Cooper >>> Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" >>> >>> Alissa, >>> >>> Thanks. I will share your request with the Board and staff and >endeavor >to get you a response quickly. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On May 12, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Alissa Cooper >wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Steve, >>>> >>>> The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition >process >if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at >. >Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft >proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests >that >those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the >matter and inform us of your findings. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -- Paul Wilson, Director General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net From pwilson at apnic.net Tue May 19 11:57:58 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 21:57:58 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship Transition In-Reply-To: <662285E7-4A79-4A6A-A1CF-7E777E1C0BC4@cooperw.in> References: <22E0C7499E7BF643BDAF6DE9E42D685540E8D7@nthexch003g.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> <662285E7-4A79-4A6A-A1CF-7E777E1C0BC4@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4A5F4929-B4F0-4CA3-BB1F-2455AD035416@apnic.net> Alissa, yes I think the request is clear enough and it is public so I would not add unnecessary formality and message passing to this process. Paul. On 12 May 2015, at 4:15, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Paul, > > As I mentioned in my initial response thoughts for this, I think the > most efficient way forward would be for you and Alan to ask the > numbers community for input about time needed for implementation of > the numbers proposal, and for myself/Jari/Russ/Lynn to do the same on > the IETF side, and to have that input brought back into the ICG. Then, > as Wolf-Ulrich suggested, we can marry that input with the > implementation timelines from the CWG/CCWG and the ICG’s proposal > finalization timeline to come up with one consolidated timeline. > > Do you think the request is clear enough for you to take it to the > numbers community? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > On May 11, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > >> Dear Alissa and all, >> >> CRISP members have pointed out to me that although USG advised the >> CWG about this letter (in public email from Ashley Heineman to the >> CWG chairs), they did not advise CRISP directly, and apparently not >> the IETF either. >> >> I suppose that the NTIA’s request is now public and it is clear >> enough, but is there a need for any specific request or further >> details from the IGC to the three communities? >> >> If not, then as one of the responsible ICG members, I will check with >> the CRISP team that the request is clear enough and whether they will >> be able to comply. I assume that others will look after the other 2 >> communities, to the extent that that is needed! >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul. >> >> >> >> >> On 7 May 2015, at 8:05, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Fiona Alexander >>>> Subject: Letter to the ICG from NTIA on the IANA Stewardship >>>> Transition >>>> Date: May 6, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM PDT >>>> To: "Alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at frobbit.se" >>>> , "mbashir at mbash.net" >>>> Cc: Larry Strickling , >>>> "fadi.chehade at icann.org" >>>> >>>> Enclosed please find a letter from Assistant Secretary Strickling >>>> to the ICG on the IANA stewardship transition. A similar letter >>>> has been sent to the CCWG. >>>> >>>> Fiona >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Fiona M. Alexander >>>> Associate Administrator for International Affairs >>>> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >>>> (202) 482-1866 >>>> www.ntia.doc.gov >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >> dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net >> @apnicdg ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 19 22:32:27 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 15:32:27 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements In-Reply-To: <2865BC1C-84F2-4965-8271-63F258FABE1E@shinkuro.com> References: <2865BC1C-84F2-4965-8271-63F258FABE1E@shinkuro.com> Message-ID: Hi Steve, Thank you. We appreciate your response. Alissa Cooper, on behalf of the ICG On May 13, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > Alissa, > > Thanks again for your query. I have copied the statement you referred to so this message contains all of the relevant context. > > Let me make this short and unambiguous. We agree with you. ICANN will make its positions known publicly and we will use the available forms of publication, including the relevant public comment processes. > > We will also file this exchange through the public comment process as well. > > Thanks, > > Steve Crocker, nn behalf of the board and staff of ICANN, > > P.S. I have cc’d internal-cg at ianacg.org, but I noted from my last response that I do not have posting rights. Please do forward. > > > > > > On May 12, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG has noted that it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at . Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG > > > Copied from https://www.ianacg.org/icg-statement-on-contracts-and-other-agreements/ > ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements > >> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, the ICG notes that operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their respective transition proposals. >> The ICG expects — as it has from the very beginning of the transition process — that all interested parties will express their opinions about the transition proposals openly, transparently, and within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. In order to ensure that any final proposal complies with the principle of multistakeholder support, it is crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 20 01:02:53 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 21:02:53 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 16: Chat Transcript and Attendance list Message-ID: <013201d09298$b4aaa170$1dffe450$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and attendance roll call (below) for Call 16, please let me know if you note any discrepancies: ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Apologies Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Michael Niebel (GAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Joseph Alhadeff (ICCG/BASIS) James Bladel (GNSO) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Call 16 Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 105388 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 20 02:00:05 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 22:00:05 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call announcement for approval Message-ID: <015a01d092a0$b22cd690$168683b0$@icgsec.asia> Dear Chairs, Attached is the draft announcement for approval for ICG calls 17, 18 and 19. Once approved this will be posted on the web site and both social media accounts. Calendar invites will go out shortly after this email. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Call 17, 18, 19 announcement.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 21146 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 20 16:16:51 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 12:16:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 16: Decisions taken list, Action item list Message-ID: <006a01d09318$6295d870$27c18950$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the two lists for ICG Call 16 below: Decisions taken list: 1. ICG to further discuss and refine the concept of implementation on internal-cg mailing list, and collect input from their respective operational communities regarding implementation timeframes. 2. ICG to discuss how much time is needed for the proposal finalization process on the internal-cg mailing list and following call. 3. Mueller to propose and discuss edits to Knoben’s pre-assessment of the Names proposal on the internal-cg mailing list. 4. Secretariat to publish the approved minutes for the 22 April ICG Call #15. Action Item list: 1. Cooper to acknowledge ICANN Board Chair, Steve Crocker’s response regarding ICG statement on contracts. 2. Fältström to work with Secretariat to schedule ICG Call for July and August 2015. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 20 16:31:56 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 09:31:56 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Message-ID: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what it means for the transition proposals to be “implemented” before we can go out to the operational communities and gather input about implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter from Larry: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go ask the communities is something along the following lines: "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects?" This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the NTIA contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the extent to which those things need to be “done” should be defined by the communities. Thoughts? Alissa From kdrazek at verisign.com Wed May 20 16:50:02 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:50:02 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. NTIA's request included transition planning and associated timeframes...including finalization and implementation. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we can go out to the operational communities and gather input about implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter from Larry: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go ask the communities is something along the following lines: "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?" This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the NTIA contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the extent to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by the communities. Thoughts? Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed May 20 17:21:48 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:21:48 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Agree with Keith¹s edits. Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this? As a part of our request to Names? The implementation timeline associated with this group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path. Thanks‹ J. On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS >below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal >development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. NTIA's >request included transition planning and associated >timeframes...including finalization and implementation. > >Regards, >Keith > >-----Original Message----- >From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >Alissa Cooper >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM >To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > >On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what it >means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we can go >out to the operational communities and gather input about implementation >time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter from Larry: > >"I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the >transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition >plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the >three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before >the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these >issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in >Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the >United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the >proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the >CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be >implemented prior to the ending of the contract." > >Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go ask >the communities is something along the following lines: > >"The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND >implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the >NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). >From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think >your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >AND implementation of these aspects?" > >This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the >communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the NTIA >contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the extent >to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by the >communities. > >Thoughts? > >Alissa > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kdrazek at verisign.com Wed May 20 17:23:44 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:44 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498100BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks James. The CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs received their own version of the same letter from NTIA, so I expect they'll be responding directly. Best, Keith -----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:22 PM To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Agree with Keith¹s edits. Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this? As a part of our request to Names? The implementation timeline associated with this group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path. Thanks< J. On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS >below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal >development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. >NTIA's request included transition planning and associated >timeframes...including finalization and implementation. > >Regards, >Keith > >-----Original Message----- >From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >Alissa Cooper >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM >To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > >On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what >it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we can >go out to the operational communities and gather input about >implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter from Larry: > >"I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of >the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the >transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that >you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your >views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to >discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June >ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in >mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to >evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the >ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition >will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." > >Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go >ask the communities is something along the following lines: > >"The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND >implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the >NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). >From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you >think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL >DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?" > >This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the >communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the NTIA >contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the extent >to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by the >communities. > >Thoughts? > >Alissa > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed May 20 17:27:34 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498100BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498100BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Keith. Makes sense that they would respond directly. I guess we can presume that their response will be factored in to NTIA’s consideration of an extension. J. On 5/20/15, 10:23 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >Thanks James. > >The CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs received their own version of the same >letter from NTIA, so I expect they'll be responding directly. > >Best, >Keith > >-----Original Message----- >From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:22 PM >To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org >Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > >Agree with Keith¹s edits. > >Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this? As a part of our >request to Names? The implementation timeline associated with this >group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path. > >Thanks< > >J. > > >On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > >>Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS >>below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal >>development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. >>NTIA's request included transition planning and associated >>timeframes...including finalization and implementation. >> >>Regards, >>Keith >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>Alissa Cooper >>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM >>To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >>On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what >>it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we can >>go out to the operational communities and gather input about >>implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter >>from Larry: >> >>"I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of >>the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >>community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the >>transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that >>you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your >>views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to >>discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June >>ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in >>mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to >>evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the >>ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition >>will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." >> >>Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go >>ask the communities is something along the following lines: >> >>"The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND >>implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >>have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the >>NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). >>From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you >>think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL >>DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?" >> >>This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the >>communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the NTIA >>contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the extent >>to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by the >>communities. >> >>Thoughts? >> >>Alissa >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list >>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list >>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kdrazek at verisign.com Wed May 20 17:32:04 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:32:04 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498100BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498101D1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Agreed, for the Work Stream 1 requirements. Also, my understanding is that the Co-Chairs of the CWG Transition and CCWG Accountability are discussing any dependencies so the respective timelines will inform one another. Keith -----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:28 PM To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Thanks, Keith. Makes sense that they would respond directly. I guess we can presume that their response will be factored in to NTIA's consideration of an extension. J. On 5/20/15, 10:23 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >Thanks James. > >The CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs received their own version of the >same letter from NTIA, so I expect they'll be responding directly. > >Best, >Keith > >-----Original Message----- >From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:22 PM >To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org >Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > >Agree with Keith¹s edits. > >Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this? As a part of >our request to Names? The implementation timeline associated with this >group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path. > >Thanks< > >J. > > >On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > >>Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS >>below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal >>development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. >>NTIA's request included transition planning and associated >>timeframes...including finalization and implementation. >> >>Regards, >>Keith >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>Alissa Cooper >>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM >>To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >>On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what >>it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we >>can go out to the operational communities and gather input about >>implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the >>letter from Larry: >> >>"I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of >>the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >>community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the >>transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that >>you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your >>views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to >>discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June >>ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in >>mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to >>evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the >>ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition >>will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." >> >>Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go >>ask the communities is something along the following lines: >> >>"The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >>expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). >>From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you >>think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL >>DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?" >> >>This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the >>communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the >>NTIA contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the >>extent to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by >>the communities. >> >>Thoughts? >> >>Alissa >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list >>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list >>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Wed May 20 17:36:06 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joe Alhadeff) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498100BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Sorry to have missed the call, and if this was already discussed... What is our role in consolidating the implementation recommendations in terms of our proposal? Are any of the specific community implementation actions sequentially predicates for other community action? Do we just list the three implementation plans as part of the proposal or do we have to consider any sequencing or integration? Will there be a timeline of implementation for our proposal as a whole? Joe -----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:28 PM To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Thanks, Keith. Makes sense that they would respond directly. I guess we can presume that their response will be factored in to NTIA's consideration of an extension. J. On 5/20/15, 10:23 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >Thanks James. > >The CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs received their own version of the >same letter from NTIA, so I expect they'll be responding directly. > >Best, >Keith > >-----Original Message----- >From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:22 PM >To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org >Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > >Agree with Keith¹s edits. > >Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this? As a part of >our request to Names? The implementation timeline associated with this >group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path. > >Thanks< > >J. > > >On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > >>Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS >>below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal >>development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. >>NTIA's request included transition planning and associated >>timeframes...including finalization and implementation. >> >>Regards, >>Keith >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>Alissa Cooper >>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM >>To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >>On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what >>it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we >>can go out to the operational communities and gather input about >>implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the >>letter from Larry: >> >>"I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of >>the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >>community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the >>transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that >>you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your >>views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to >>discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June >>ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in >>mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to >>evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the >>ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition >>will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." >> >>Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go >>ask the communities is something along the following lines: >> >>"The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >>expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). >>From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you >>think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL >>DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?" >> >>This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the >>communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the >>NTIA contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the >>extent to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by >>the communities. >> >>Thoughts? >> >>Alissa >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list >>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list >>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed May 20 18:12:18 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 18:12:18 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498100BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> , Message-ID: Joe: I also missed the call, but the simplest approach would be to examine the community with the longest timeline (spoiler: it's Names) and make that the critical path. This assume we have no intentions of pushing back or negotiating the calendars the three communities submit to us. J. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. > On May 20, 2015, at 10:36, Joe Alhadeff wrote: > > Sorry to have missed the call, and if this was already discussed... > > What is our role in consolidating the implementation recommendations in terms of our proposal? Are any of the specific community implementation actions sequentially predicates for other community action? Do we just list the three implementation plans as part of the proposal or do we have to consider any sequencing or integration? Will there be a timeline of implementation for our proposal as a whole? > > Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:28 PM > To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > > Thanks, Keith. Makes sense that they would respond directly. I guess we > can presume that their response will be factored in to NTIA's consideration of an extension. > > > J. > >> On 5/20/15, 10:23 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >> >> Thanks James. >> >> The CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs received their own version of the >> same letter from NTIA, so I expect they'll be responding directly. >> >> Best, >> Keith >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:22 PM >> To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >> Agree with Keith¹s edits. >> >> Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this? As a part of >> our request to Names? The implementation timeline associated with this >> group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path. >> >> Thanks< >> >> J. >> >> >>> On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS >>> below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal >>> development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. >>> NTIA's request included transition planning and associated >>> timeframes...including finalization and implementation. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Keith >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >>> >>> On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what >>> it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we >>> can go out to the operational communities and gather input about >>> implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the >>> letter from Larry: >>> >>> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of >>> the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >>> community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the >>> transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that >>> you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your >>> views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to >>> discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June >>> ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in >>> mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to >>> evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the >>> ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition >>> will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." >>> >>> Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go >>> ask the communities is something along the following lines: >>> >>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). >>> From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you >>> think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL >>> DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?" >>> >>> This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the >>> communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the >>> NTIA contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the >>> extent to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by >>> the communities. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed May 20 20:06:37 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:06:37 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in><504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com><504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498100BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>, Message-ID: <68021FC6A4224EF68CD99B0BB992C4E6@WUKPC> I also agree to Keith's structure of (a) completion of proposal development, and (b) implementation. Under (a) an "implementation plan" should be incorporated prioritizing the elements of the proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:12 PM To: Joe Alhadeff Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Joe: I also missed the call, but the simplest approach would be to examine the community with the longest timeline (spoiler: it's Names) and make that the critical path. This assume we have no intentions of pushing back or negotiating the calendars the three communities submit to us. J. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. > On May 20, 2015, at 10:36, Joe Alhadeff > wrote: > > Sorry to have missed the call, and if this was already discussed... > > What is our role in consolidating the implementation recommendations in > terms of our proposal? Are any of the specific community implementation > actions sequentially predicates for other community action? Do we just > list the three implementation plans as part of the proposal or do we have > to consider any sequencing or integration? Will there be a timeline of > implementation for our proposal as a whole? > > Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:28 PM > To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > > Thanks, Keith. Makes sense that they would respond directly. I guess we > can presume that their response will be factored in to NTIA's > consideration of an extension. > > > J. > >> On 5/20/15, 10:23 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >> >> Thanks James. >> >> The CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs received their own version of the >> same letter from NTIA, so I expect they'll be responding directly. >> >> Best, >> Keith >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:22 PM >> To: Drazek, Keith; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >> Agree with Keith¹s edits. >> >> Where do we see CCWG-Accountabilty fitting in on this? As a part of >> our request to Names? The implementation timeline associated with this >> group¹s work could be the longest and therefore become the critical path. >> >> Thanks< >> >> J. >> >> >>> On 5/20/15, 9:50 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS >>> below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal >>> development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. >>> NTIA's request included transition planning and associated >>> timeframes...including finalization and implementation. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Keith >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >>> >>> On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what >>> it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we >>> can go out to the operational communities and gather input about >>> implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the >>> letter from Larry: >>> >>> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of >>> the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >>> community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the >>> transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that >>> you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your >>> views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to >>> discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June >>> ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in >>> mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to >>> evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the >>> ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition >>> will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." >>> >>> Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go >>> ask the communities is something along the following lines: >>> >>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>> agreements, or entities). >>> From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you >>> think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL >>> DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?" >>> >>> This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the >>> communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the >>> NTIA contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the >>> extent to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by >>> the communities. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Wed May 20 21:30:35 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:30:35 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> I think this looks good and I support Keith's edits. Lynn On May 20, 2015, at 12:50 PM, "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > Hi Alissa, I think this looks good with two suggested edits in CAPS below. I think we need to include both (a) completion of proposal development, and (b) implementation. At least for the Naming CWG. NTIA's request included transition planning and associated timeframes...including finalization and implementation. > > Regards, > Keith > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:32 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > > On the call yesterday we said we needed further discussion about what it means for the transition proposals to be "implemented" before we can go out to the operational communities and gather input about implementation time frames. Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter from Larry: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." > > Re-reading this, I think the question we as community reps need to go ask the communities is something along the following lines: > > "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND implementation of these aspects?" > > This makes it clear that the focus is specifically on what the communities have decided about what needs to get done prior to the NTIA contract expiry versus what may be done later, and also that the extent to which those things need to be "done" should be defined by the communities. > > Thoughts? > > Alissa > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Thu May 21 04:54:56 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 04:54:56 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there > > "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational > communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT > AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities > have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA > contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start > to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your > community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu May 21 08:47:19 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 04:47:19 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? Joe On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there > >>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT > "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". > > You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu May 21 21:37:03 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:37:03 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding? Thanks, Alissa --- "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? > > Joe > > On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >> >>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >>> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >>> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >>> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >>> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >> >> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu May 21 21:37:06 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:37:06 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline Message-ID: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from NTIA. I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the communities to make edits if necessary *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate summer holidays) *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal The total ends up being about 4 months. I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our May 27 call to continue the discussion. Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 11935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Fri May 22 02:40:44 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 02:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> References: <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <850860780.134621.1432262444191.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> +1 Alissa, it makes a lot  of sense to me. Mary Uduma   On Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:38 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding? Thanks, Alissa --- "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? > > Joe > > On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >> >>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >>> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >>> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >>> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >>> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >> >> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 22 06:54:17 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:54:17 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <13B68FDA-87A6-4E06-8D45-74183AB87EA2@gmail.com> Alissa, In order to avoid any potential interpretation of your question, I suggest your text begins with the citation/ quotation of the exact question asked by NTIA , by placing it between two inverted comma and in italic font: character and then continue with your text Regards Kavoudd Sent from my iPhone > On 21 May 2015, at 23:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. > > So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > --- > > "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" > >> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >> >> Joe >> >>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>> >>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >>>> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >>>> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >>>> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >>>> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>> >>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Fri May 22 08:47:40 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:47:40 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <13B68FDA-87A6-4E06-8D45-74183AB87EA2@gmail.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <13B68FDA-87A6-4E06-8D45-74183AB87EA2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Many thanks Alissa and all .. I agree with all comments .. Thanks Alissa for the clarification that this is not a written exchange .. I initially thought it is (which I prefer) .. I thought you'll be sending an email to each of the OCs, cc'ing their ICG representatives, and was going to suggest that we attach the letter since not all OCs received it formally.. But I'm flexible .. I also wanted to suggest that we share with the OCs a deadline for receiving their responses, in order to allow ourselves time for: - consolidating their responses - sharing the consolidated version with them again before sending to NTIA, if needed, and - responding to the NTIA before the end of June as requested I can see that you've already suggested June 10th in your second email .. So , I have no objections for proceeding .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:54 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Alissa, In order to avoid any potential interpretation of your question, I suggest your text begins with the citation/ quotation of the exact question asked by NTIA , by placing it between two inverted comma and in italic font: character and then continue with your text Regards Kavoudd Sent from my iPhone > On 21 May 2015, at 23:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. > > So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > --- > > "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" > >> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >> >> Joe >> >>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>> >>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >>>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >>>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>> >>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, >>> there, Keith ;-( >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Fri May 22 11:13:29 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 07:13:29 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <77B0AA5A-76D6-4973-8594-44B47A3ED796@LStAmour.org> Thanks Alissa, I assume we are making the start of this timetable from the date we have a complete CWG proposal? Further, do we have the time to wait for the responses to the planned "implementation" discussion to determine our own timeline, as that also asks the OC's how much time they need to complete proposal development? With the recent completion of the CWG Public Comment period, it is unclear to me what next steps the other OC's may undertake so their input here could be instructive. Best, Lynn On May 21, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from NTIA. > > I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: > > *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own > *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the communities to make edits if necessary > *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate summer holidays) > *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … > *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary > *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal > > The total ends up being about 4 months. > > I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. > > I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our May 27 call to continue the discussion. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 22 16:25:05 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:25:05 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: No objections here. Based on your phrasing below I am assuming that these inquiries take the form of non-public emails to specific people rather than the operational community lists? > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf > Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:37 PM > To: joseph alhadeff > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > > Note that we don't need to do serious wordsmithing here since this > isn't text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we > agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the > ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the > questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari > and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; > and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are > our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an > updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in > addition to the information about implementation. > > So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I've repeated the > text with Keith's edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and > seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 > call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an > answer. Any objections to proceeding? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > --- > > "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational > communities believe they will need to complete proposal > development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal > that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior > to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, > agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many > weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete > the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" > > On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff > wrote: > > > should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND > NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? > > > > Joe > > > > On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there > >> > >>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational > >>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL > DEVELOPMENT > >>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the > >>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to > the > >>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, > >>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how > >>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to > >>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT > >> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". > >> > >> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, > >> Keith ;-( > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Fri May 22 19:33:22 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 21:33:22 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I think we can handle the communication via the contact persons we have in ICG, and then each person can answer the question the way they want -- given the process they use. Similar to the fact the letter from NTIA was in fact not sent to ICG but to us chairs. Detail, but I think it is important to keep these "informal" communications informal, because one day we will have the need to have formal communication between the groups. Patrik On 22 May 2015, at 18:25, Milton L Mueller wrote: > No objections here. > Based on your phrasing below I am assuming that these inquiries take the form of non-public emails to specific people rather than the operational community lists? > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >> Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:37 PM >> To: joseph alhadeff >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >> Note that we don't need to do serious wordsmithing here since this >> isn't text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we >> agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the >> ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the >> questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari >> and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; >> and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are >> our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an >> updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in >> addition to the information about implementation. >> >> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I've repeated the >> text with Keith's edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and >> seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 >> call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an >> answer. Any objections to proceeding? >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> --- >> >> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >> communities believe they will need to complete proposal >> development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal >> that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior >> to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many >> weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete >> the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" >> >> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff >> wrote: >> >>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND >> NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>>> >>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL >> DEVELOPMENT >>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to >> the >>>>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >>>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >>>>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>>> >>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, >>>> Keith ;-( >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sat May 23 04:33:05 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 06:33:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in><504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com><923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org><555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com><1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> I agree to the content as well as to Manal's suggestion re our expectation for a response date. My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:33 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Sat May 23 05:16:28 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 07:16:28 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> Message-ID: <00AF8DA1-0DBC-41EE-B927-458F6A87E284@frobbit.se> On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote: > My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too. Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative. We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send. I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sat May 23 05:51:56 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 07:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fw: [discuss] Invitation to Participate and voice your opinion in theRound table discussion on " IANA Transition & ICANNAccountability Process and India's position " Message-ID: <27BA3AA30BB045618FCB111453FACE2B@WUKPC> FYI! This seems to be shared on various lists. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Amrita Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 7:29 AM To: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Mail at ConnectedCommunity.org ; chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org ; discuss at 1net.org ; apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net Subject: [discuss] Invitation to Participate and voice your opinion in theRound table discussion on " IANA Transition & ICANNAccountability Process and India's position " Apologies for cross posting, please find below an invite from CCAOI Dear Stakeholder, We wish to invite you to participate in a round table discussion on " IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability Process and India's position ", to be held on 30th May, 2015, at Juniper Hall, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 from 10:30 to 2:30pm, followed by lunch. For the very first time, this round table will facilitate remote participation so that interested stakeholders from across the country can join the discussion and share their views with the global audience. As may be aware, CCAOI had conducted a study on the “The Indian Perspective on the IANA Stewardship Transition”, to understand and crystallize issues related to the IANA Transition and obtained inputs on these issues from diverse stakeholders. The latter include civil society, private sector, experts as well as government functionaries. Subsequently, the views expressed by these stakeholders were assimilated to come up with the discussion points, which were compiled into a report and submitted to NIXI. At the round table we plan not only to share and discuss the salient points of our study, but also to but also to cover and catch up the recent global developments on IANA Transition and initiate deliberation between all stakeholders on India’s approach to the queries raised by CCWG Accountability group, discuss issues in the IANA transition which are relevant to India but not receiving adequate attention and identify best way forward for India and identify best way forward for India Dr. Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, has accepted to Chair the event and the discussions would be moderated by Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI and Dr. Mahesh Uppal. The supporting partners for the event are NIXI, DeitY, ICANN, ISOC Delhi, ITU APT Foundation of India, ACTO and AUSPI. The concept note for the workshop has been attached , while the detailed program would be shared subsequently. We look forward to for your confirmation. With warm regards & best wishes, On behalf of CCAOI Amrita Choudhury Director +91 9899682701 www.ccaoi.in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4112 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCAOI Round Table Concept Note.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 202897 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sat May 23 06:18:27 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 02:18:27 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Message-ID: <00fa01d09520$49687920$dc396b60$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-19-may-2015-draft.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41084 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat May 23 09:12:22 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 05:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <00AF8DA1-0DBC-41EE-B927-458F6A87E284@frobbit.se> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> <00AF8DA1-0DBC-41EE-B927-458F6A87E284@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <55604476.7040304@oracle.com> Patrik: Do we need any semblance of coherence in how all communities interpret implementation to assure that their responses make sense when conjoined in our proposal? Joe On 5/23/2015 1:16 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote: > >> My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too. > Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative. > > We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send. > > I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question. > > Patrik > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 23 15:21:25 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 17:21:25 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <55604476.7040304@oracle.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> <00AF8DA1-0DBC-41EE-B927-458F6A87E284@frobbit.se> <55604476.7040304@oracle.com> Message-ID: Patrik What you want is just what you want. I do not understand you and nor agreed that any ICG either co chairs or individual member impose his or het views to the entire ICG. We need to have a coordinated and harmonised process which all ICs use in their reply. I therefore support Joe, s views and disagree with your views. There is no " I" in our process rather we all should agree Tks Regards Sent from my iPhone > On 23 May 2015, at 11:12, joseph alhadeff wrote: > > Patrik: > > Do we need any semblance of coherence in how all communities interpret implementation to assure that their responses make sense when conjoined in our proposal? > > Joe > > > >> On 5/23/2015 1:16 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>> On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote: >>> >>> My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too. >> Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative. >> >> We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send. >> >> I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question. >> >> Patrik >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat May 23 17:45:02 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 19:45:02 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> <00AF8DA1-0DBC-41EE-B927-458F6A87E284@frobbit.se> <55604476.7040304@oracle.com> Message-ID: Patrik What you want is just what you want. I do not understand you and nor agreed that any ICG either co chairs or individual member impose his or het views to the entire ICG. We need to have a coordinated and harmonised process which all OCs use in their reply. I therefore support Joe, s views and disagree with your views. There is no " I" in our process rather we all should agree Tks Regards 2015-05-23 17:21 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh : > Patrik > What you want is just what you want. > I do not understand you and nor agreed that any ICG either co chairs or > individual member impose his or het views to the entire ICG. > We need to have a coordinated and harmonised process which all ICs use > in their reply. > I therefore support Joe, s views and disagree with your views. > There is no " I" in our process rather we all should agree > Tks > Regards > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 23 May 2015, at 11:12, joseph alhadeff > wrote: > > Patrik: > > Do we need any semblance of coherence in how all communities interpret > implementation to assure that their responses make sense when conjoined in > our proposal? > > Joe > > > > On 5/23/2015 1:16 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote: > > > My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too. > > Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative. > > We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send. > > I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question. > > Patrik > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at mm.ianacg.orghttp://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat May 23 19:33:21 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 21:33:21 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <55604476.7040304@oracle.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> <00AF8DA1-0DBC-41EE-B927-458F6A87E284@frobbit.se> <55604476.7040304@oracle.com> Message-ID: Joe, This is one the reasons I am nervous of a "simple" questions-and-answer roundtrip, where the value of the answer is impossible to interpret given the context is unknown. This is why I rather see one question and then we allow some discussion, cross-oc discussion and finally a discussion within ICG about *OUR* timeline (which you see Alissa has initiated). I guess we also in ICG will discuss what is meant by implementation in the letter from Strickling to us chairs. So, to answer your question, maybe, but I see the need for some discussion on what in general is meant by "implementation". And ultimately we are not after "July 23 or 24" but rather whether a. we believe an extension is needed and b. how many 3 or 6 month periods we do believe we believe is needed. I think given the data we have today a. yes we do need an extension; b. we look at summer (on the northern hemisphere) 2016 for ready date. And the question now is whether we see any reason to change that. I guess the open consultations for CWG Names and CCWG Accountability that both have closed before we need to respond will give a good answer to that. For the other OCs, it is more a check whether they have some really hard issues that are problematic to implement. According to what I have seen, the answer to that question is "no". Because of this, interaction via the ICG members that are active in the OCs plus CCWG Accountability plus the coordination we chairs do between each others will probably give enough data. No reason to create more bureaucracy or process here than needed. That said, by all means, speak up if you or any other member of ICG do have a different view. Patrik On 23 May 2015, at 11:12, joseph alhadeff wrote: > Patrik: > > Do we need any semblance of coherence in how all communities interpret implementation to assure that their responses make sense when conjoined in our proposal? > > Joe > > > > On 5/23/2015 1:16 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote: >> >>> My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too. >> Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative. >> >> We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send. >> >> I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question. >> >> Patrik >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sun May 24 02:33:58 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 22:33:58 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> <00AF8DA1-0DBC-41EE-B927-458F6A87E284@frobbit.se> <55604476.7040304@oracle.com> Message-ID: <96456705-6E79-47CA-AA4F-534C242E898A@frobbit.se> On 23 May 2015, at 11:21, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Patrik > What you want is just what you want. > I do not understand you and nor agreed that any ICG either co chairs or individual member impose his or het views to the entire ICG. Dear Kavouss, no one have suggested that either. We have our consensus process that we have agreed to. > We need to have a coordinated and harmonised process which all ICs use in their reply. Well, each OC do have their own processes for consensus building already and we can not impose what process one OC use onto another OC. For the implementation phase we do not even know what NTIA imply by "implementation" so the most important thing is for us to know what people mean when they give information. And this is why I am in favor of discussions more than single question/response. > I therefore support Joe, s views and disagree with your views. Noted. > There is no " I" in our process rather we all should agree Well, we all must be able to speak as individuals. You as well as myself. Patrik > Tks > Regards > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 23 May 2015, at 11:12, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> Patrik: >> >> Do we need any semblance of coherence in how all communities interpret implementation to assure that their responses make sense when conjoined in our proposal? >> >> Joe >> >> >> >>> On 5/23/2015 1:16 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>> On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote: >>>> >>>> My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too. >>> Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative. >>> >>> We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send. >>> >>> I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question. >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun May 24 07:24:49 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 09:24:49 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <5A6FC833A8D34E068DF4AD43E23F043C@WUKPC> <00AF8DA1-0DBC-41EE-B927-458F6A87E284@frobbit.se> <55604476.7040304@oracle.com> Message-ID: Parik It is a good question? Larry had referred in the past to the term" implementation" could we agree in ICG to ask its exact meaning and scope Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 23 May 2015, at 21:33, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > Joe, > > This is one the reasons I am nervous of a "simple" questions-and-answer roundtrip, where the value of the answer is impossible to interpret given the context is unknown. This is why I rather see one question and then we allow some discussion, cross-oc discussion and finally a discussion within ICG about *OUR* timeline (which you see Alissa has initiated). I guess we also in ICG will discuss what is meant by implementation in the letter from Strickling to us chairs. > > So, to answer your question, maybe, but I see the need for some discussion on what in general is meant by "implementation". And ultimately we are not after "July 23 or 24" but rather whether a. we believe an extension is needed and b. how many 3 or 6 month periods we do believe we believe is needed. > > I think given the data we have today a. yes we do need an extension; b. we look at summer (on the northern hemisphere) 2016 for ready date. > > And the question now is whether we see any reason to change that. > > I guess the open consultations for CWG Names and CCWG Accountability that both have closed before we need to respond will give a good answer to that. For the other OCs, it is more a check whether they have some really hard issues that are problematic to implement. According to what I have seen, the answer to that question is "no". > > Because of this, interaction via the ICG members that are active in the OCs plus CCWG Accountability plus the coordination we chairs do between each others will probably give enough data. No reason to create more bureaucracy or process here than needed. > > That said, by all means, speak up if you or any other member of ICG do have a different view. > > Patrik > >> On 23 May 2015, at 11:12, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >> Patrik: >> >> Do we need any semblance of coherence in how all communities interpret implementation to assure that their responses make sense when conjoined in our proposal? >> >> Joe >> >> >> >>> On 5/23/2015 1:16 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>> On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote: >>>> >>>> My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too. >>> Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative. >>> >>> We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send. >>> >>> I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question. >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Sun May 24 22:01:59 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 15:01:59 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: <73EB141B-E310-4B45-8532-311BCCEFCE2D@Internet-Matters.com> References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> <73EB141B-E310-4B45-8532-311BCCEFCE2D@Internet-Matters.com> Message-ID: <775C311C-D45E-4F58-9B5D-6C09497BFE2D@cooperw.in> Hi Lynn, On May 22, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Thanks Alissa, > > I assume we are making the start of this timetable from the date we have a complete CWG proposal? Yes. At this point I don’t think we should focus so much on the dates as on the amount of time we need, i.e., if we think we need approximately 4 months once we receive the CWG proposal, that is good information to have. Then we can put the wheels in motion whenever we receive the CWG proposal. > Further, do we have the time to wait for the responses to the planned "implementation" discussion to determine our own timeline, as that also asks the OC's how much time they need to complete proposal development? I really want us to decouple the discussions about the ICG time frames and the implementation time frames. They are independent. We can draw conclusions about our own timeline while we wait to hear back from the OCs about both implementation timing and proposal completion timing (in the case of the CWG). > With the recent completion of the CWG Public Comment period, it is unclear to me what next steps the other OC's may undertake so their input here could be instructive. The only input we will need from the other OCs is about implementation time frames. Thanks, Alissa > > Best, > Lynn > > > On May 21, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from NTIA. >> >> I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: >> >> *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own >> *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the communities to make edits if necessary >> *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate summer holidays) >> *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … >> *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary >> *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal >> >> The total ends up being about 4 months. >> >> I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. >> >> I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our May 27 call to continue the discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From alissa at cooperw.in Sun May 24 22:21:32 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 15:21:32 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. Thanks, Alissa --------------------------- Dear IANAPLAN WG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CRISP team, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sun May 24 22:41:25 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 15:41:25 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 Message-ID: <301A3E08-0B13-45E0-8775-E5307D586068@cooperw.in> Please send edits/feedback on the following: 1) Minutes approval for call #16 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing 3) ICG timeline From jen at icgsec.asia Mon May 25 02:19:01 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 22:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Message-ID: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM To: 'ICG' Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-19-may-2015-draft-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41286 bytes Desc: not available URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Mon May 25 06:26:54 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 16:26:54 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> All, My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: "Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed." [In hindsight that "may" should have been a "must" or "are required", ie "immediate milestones that are required to occur before..." but that is a separate item.] I note the IETF has answered: " As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen issues that might arise as a result of other changes. What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP." The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. I would therefore think the RFP response isn't complete. Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn't it: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don't have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. My apologies for not raising this earlier. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I've drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I've added one sentence about the fact that we're looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). I'd like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. Thanks, Alissa --------------------------- Dear IANAPLAN WG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed - Dear CRISP team, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed - Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon May 25 08:15:34 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 10:15:34 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <79B9A82E-A9D1-4772-8677-0933E0BD5AC7@oracle.com> narelle: I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had alluded to previously. Best Joe Sent from my iPad > On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > > All, > My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. > > Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: > “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any > intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” > > [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.] > > I note the IETF has answered: > “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are > anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods > proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the > RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen > issues that might arise as a result of other changes. > > What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any > supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements > outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” > > The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. > > I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. > > Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf > > Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. > > Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. > > My apologies for not raising this earlier. > > > > Narelle > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > > Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). > > I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > --------------------------- > > Dear IANAPLAN WG, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. > > If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > — > > Dear CRISP team, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. > > If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > — > > Dear CWG, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. > > If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon May 25 08:30:58 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 10:30:58 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <79B9A82E-A9D1-4772-8677-0933E0BD5AC7@oracle.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> <79B9A82E-A9D1-4772-8677-0933E0BD5AC7@oracle.com> Message-ID: Dear Alissa, ]Thank you very much for your effort. Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment. I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “*Accordingly ……Argentina”* But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely “*please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”* The reason is that it is necessary to quote the exact language used in NTIA letter relating to implementation . May you please reconsider and correct the text Regards Kavouss 2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : > narelle: > > I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of > the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does > that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had > alluded to previously. > > Best > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark > wrote: > > All, > > My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation > timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer > explicitly from the responses. > > Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: > > “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to > take to complete, and any > > intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” > > > > [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie > “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a > separate item.] > > > > I note the IETF has answered: > > “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are > > anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods > > proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the > > RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen > > issues that might arise as a result of other changes. > > > > What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any > > supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements > > outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” > > > > The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. > > > > I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. > > > > Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf > > > > Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a > separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a > dependency. > > > > Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to > point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification > of the time required given the dependency. > > > > My apologies for not raising this earlier. > > > > > > > > Narelle > > > > > > *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > > > > Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted > emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not > mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already > complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that > we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this > thread). > > > > I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > --------------------------- > > > > Dear IANAPLAN WG, > > > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling < > http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that > included the following text: > > > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the > transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the > community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition > plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the > three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the > end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues > with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. > In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States > Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all > work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as > prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the > ending of the contract.” > > > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational > communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and > implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have > identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA > contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From > start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your > community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We > understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your > best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. > > > > If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives > (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much > appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in > June, that would be welcome. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > > > — > > > > Dear CRISP team, > > > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling < > http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that > included the following text: > > > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the > transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the > community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition > plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the > three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the > end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues > with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. > In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States > Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all > work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as > prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the > ending of the contract.” > > > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational > communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and > implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have > identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA > contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From > start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your > community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We > understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your > best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. > > > > If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives > (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much > appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in > June, that would be welcome. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > > > — > > > > Dear CWG, > > > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling < > http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that > included the following text: > > > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the > transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the > community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition > plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the > three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the > end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues > with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. > In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States > Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all > work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as > prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the > ending of the contract.” > > > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational > communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and > implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have > identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA > contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From > start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your > community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, > approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will > need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these > time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best > estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. > > > > If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG > (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, > that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate > to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Mon May 25 09:57:59 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 05:57:59 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> References: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <990FECF7-E688-434B-9D02-7A4BE704F71D@LStAmour.org> Hi Jennifer, Thank you. The minutes look good. I have only one minor comment. On item # 3. Response from Steve Crocker regarding ICG statement on contracts. It currently reads: "Cooper asked if the ICG members needed any discussion in regards to the response from Steve Crocker." The minutes would be more helpful if we could reference the original question. Best, Lynn On May 24, 2015, at 10:19 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here:http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > Dear All, > > The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Mon May 25 10:37:28 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 18:37:28 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> Alissa, As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN will have a role in the implementation together with the respective operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy to input their view for ICG to consider. Thanks. Kuo Wu > Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： > > Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. > > So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > --- > > "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" > > On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > >> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >> >> Joe >> >> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>> >>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >>>> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >>>> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >>>> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >>>> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>> >>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Mon May 25 14:49:48 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 14:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <304cce5fc309402db2b4f4197b9f6ee4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> I think that's a very good idea. Since ICANN may have to modify its bylaws, separate out its IANA department and take other actions, it would be very good to get its own estimate of time required. --MM > -----Original Message----- > > As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the strongest > possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. > Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN will have > a role in the implementation together with the respective operational > communities, it would be helpful to have its input in discussions of > anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy to input their view for > ICG to consider. > > Thanks. > > Kuo Wu > > > Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： > > > > Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t > text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the > sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the > various communities can communicate the questions and seek input > however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the > IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to > do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for > the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to > finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. > > > > So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text > with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input > and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize > the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to > proceeding? > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > --- > > > > "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational > communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and > implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have > identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA > contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start > to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your > community will need to complete the proposal development and > implementation of these aspects?" > > > > On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff > wrote: > > > >> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND > NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there > >>> > >>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational > >>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL > DEVELOPMENT > >>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the > >>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the > >>>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, > >>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how > >>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to > >>>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT > >>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". > >>> > >>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, > >>> there, Keith ;-( > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon May 25 15:55:46 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 17:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <304cce5fc309402db2b4f4197b9f6ee4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> <304cce5fc309402db2b4f4197b9f6ee4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3A83AF32-36B4-4EE4-9980-6C8DC74E2E2D@gmail.com> Dear All I do not support that view . It may have negative impact as they may say something in contradiction to the OCs Pls kindly id not take that proposal ICANN is represented in ICG and their views without being directly asked would be considered by ICG when required Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 25 May 2015, at 16:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I think that's a very good idea. Since ICANN may have to modify its bylaws, separate out its IANA department and take other actions, it would be very good to get its own estimate of time required. > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the strongest >> possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. >> Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN will have >> a role in the implementation together with the respective operational >> communities, it would be helpful to have its input in discussions of >> anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy to input their view for >> ICG to consider. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： >>> >>> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t >> text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the >> sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the >> various communities can communicate the questions and seek input >> however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the >> IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to >> do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for >> the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to >> finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. >>> >>> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text >> with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input >> and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize >> the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to >> proceeding? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> --- >>> >>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >> communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and >> implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have >> identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >> community will need to complete the proposal development and >> implementation of these aspects?" >>> >>>> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff >>> wrote: >>> >>>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND >> NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>>>> >>>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL >> DEVELOPMENT >>>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>>>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >>>>>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>>>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >>>>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >>>>>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>>>> >>>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, >>>>> there, Keith ;-( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon May 25 20:26:22 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 20:26:22 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <990FECF7-E688-434B-9D02-7A4BE704F71D@LStAmour.org> References: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> <990FECF7-E688-434B-9D02-7A4BE704F71D@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: <50f0ab1004fb4b5e8b5942b415838266@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear Jennifer .. I'm fine with the minutes including Lynn's suggestion but also have minor edits to provide further clarity on the second bullet on page 4 .. [Current] * Ismail asked two questions: (1) Whether the proposal needs to include details of implementation or if it is an internal working plan for the operational communities, and (2) given that CWG-IANA is dependent on output from CCWG-Accountability, will CWG-IANA be able to respond with the needed implementation time prior to their final proposal submission? [Suggested] * Ismail asked two questions: (1) Whether the final proposal needs to include all implementation details or such details are more of internal working plans of the operational communities, and (2) given that CWG-IANA is dependent on output from CCWG-Accountability, will CWG-IANA be able to respond with the needed implementation time prior to the CCWG-Accountability submitting their final proposal? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:58 AM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: 'ICG' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Hi Jennifer, Thank you. The minutes look good. I have only one minor comment. On item # 3. Response from Steve Crocker regarding ICG statement on contracts. It currently reads: "Cooper asked if the ICG members needed any discussion in regards to the response from Steve Crocker." The minutes would be more helpful if we could reference the original question. Best, Lynn On May 24, 2015, at 10:19 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here:http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > Dear All, > > The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon May 25 20:41:51 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 20:41:51 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 In-Reply-To: <301A3E08-0B13-45E0-8775-E5307D586068@cooperw.in> References: <301A3E08-0B13-45E0-8775-E5307D586068@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Many thanks Alissa .. Sounds good to me .. I can see that we have only one call remaining, on Jun 10th, before BA .. Should we start setting our BA f2f meeting agenda or do you plan to discuss it over email? On another note, reference the minutes of the 19th May 2015 teleconference, page 5 section 5, the sentence reading "She also confirmed that there will be an ICG wrap-up session during ICANN meeting on June 25.", is the wrap-up session on the 25th on? I got the feeling that the idea was not supported and have planned my flights accordingly .. Anyway, it would be helpful to know the planned time and length of this wrap-up session as soon as possible .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:41 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 Please send edits/feedback on the following: 1) Minutes approval for call #16 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing 3) ICG timeline _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon May 25 21:25:41 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 21:25:41 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <3A83AF32-36B4-4EE4-9980-6C8DC74E2E2D@gmail.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> <304cce5fc309402db2b4f4197b9f6ee4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <3A83AF32-36B4-4EE4-9980-6C8DC74E2E2D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5a89ec2830954bb49e10f66212999e5a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> I believe ICANN input should be factored in .. The more the input received and the more the coordination efforts exerted, the better and more accurate the results .. It's clear that the ICG has direct coordination channels with the 3 OCs and an indirect coordination channel with CCWG-Accountability, through CWG-IANA .. I think the question now is, should ICG chair/co-chairs (to which the letter was addressed) seek direct input from ICANN or rely on ICANN input being factored in indirectly through feedback provided to CCWG-Accountability/CWG-IANA? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 5:56 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Dear All I do not support that view . It may have negative impact as they may say something in contradiction to the OCs Pls kindly id not take that proposal ICANN is represented in ICG and their views without being directly asked would be considered by ICG when required Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 25 May 2015, at 16:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I think that's a very good idea. Since ICANN may have to modify its bylaws, separate out its IANA department and take other actions, it would be very good to get its own estimate of time required. > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the >> strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. >> Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN >> will have a role in the implementation together with the respective >> operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in >> discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy >> to input their view for ICG to consider. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： >>> >>> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this >>> isn’t >> text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree >> on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG >> reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and >> seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to >> do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and >> Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our >> liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an >> updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. >>> >>> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated >>> the text >> with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek >> the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call >> although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an >> answer. Any objections to proceeding? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> --- >>> >>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >> communities believe they will need to complete proposal development >> and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >> complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" >>> >>>> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff >>> wrote: >>> >>>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND >> NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>>>> >>>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL >> DEVELOPMENT >>>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>>>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to >>>>>> the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>>>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >>>>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >>>>>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>>>> >>>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, >>>>> there, Keith ;-( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Mon May 25 22:49:42 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 18:49:42 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG Call #17 - Wednesday, 27 May 2015, 05:00-06:00 UTC Message-ID: <009501d0973d$1797adc0$46c70940$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #17 is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 27 May 2015** at 05:00-06:00 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1diN3N4 Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia . Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let me know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda proposed by Alissa 1) Minutes approval for call #16 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing 3) ICG timeline As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thank you! Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon May 25 23:30:24 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 19:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Message-ID: <00a501d09742$c7ab6a80$57023f80$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find attached v3 of the draft minutes of the 19 May call. This is available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1HHlU0c I have incorporated edits as requested by Lynn, Milton and Manal, further details below: - Page 2: third bullet response, Milton's edits inserted - Page 4: first main bullet, Manal's edits inserted - Page 5: last sub-bullet: Wolf-Ulrich's response edited for clarity per Milton's request - Page 5: agenda item 3. reference and link added to the May 12 letter ICG sent to the ICANN Board Chair per Lynn's request Milton - you had an additional query regarding Alissa's question at the bottom of page 4, last bullet. Perhaps Alissa can suggest edits for clarification? For reference, this exchange starts at 1:09:13 of the call 16 recording (in English) which can be found here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: RE: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM To: 'ICG' Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-19-may-2015-draft-v3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41392 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Tue May 26 00:18:30 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:18:30 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG Call #17 - Wednesday, 27 May 2015, 05:00-06:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <009501d0973d$1797adc0$46c70940$@icgsec.asia> References: <009501d0973d$1797adc0$46c70940$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <280A2535-E378-40BD-A717-D6F156DC763B@apnic.net> Thanks Jennifer I will join. BTW I now cannot make it to BA in time for the ICG meeting, so I will be missing both days. So my apologies in advance for that. The BA meeting will be attended by Alan Barrett, also by others from APNIC/number community as observers. Paul On 26 May 2015, at 8:49, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear ICG Members, > > > > This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #17 is scheduled for: > > > > **Wednesday, 27 May 2015** > > at 05:00-06:00 UTC > > See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1diN3N4 > > Announcement: > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/ > > > > You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the > call > details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email > (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. > Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the > calendar > subscription function here: > https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, > please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia > . > > > > Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - > > https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To > avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live > audio > from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If > you > plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how > to > mute the virtual meeting room. > > > > Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the > queue. > To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe > Connect > room: > > > > If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, > please > let me know. > > > > Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, > FR, > RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. > > Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through > the > Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for > the > global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the > English > stream. > > > > Agenda proposed by Alissa > > 1) Minutes approval for call #16 > > 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing > > 3) ICG timeline > > > > As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any > questions, concerns or need a dial-out. > > > > Thank you! > > > > Best regards > > ICG Secretariat Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From jen at icgsec.asia Tue May 26 01:09:05 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 21:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG Call #17 - Wednesday, 27 May 2015, 05:00-06:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <280A2535-E378-40BD-A717-D6F156DC763B@apnic.net> References: <009501d0973d$1797adc0$46c70940$@icgsec.asia> <280A2535-E378-40BD-A717-D6F156DC763B@apnic.net> Message-ID: <00cc01d09750$90b8ea80$b22abf80$@icgsec.asia> Thank you Paul for the confirmation. For everyone who is not able to make it in person, we will have remote participation available for the ICG sessions in Buenos Aires: the ICG face-to-face meeting 5 (Thursday 19 June - Friday 20 June) and the wrap-up session on Thursday 25 June, details to be announced when available from ICANN. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 8:19 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG Call #17 - Wednesday, 27 May 2015, 05:00-06:00 UTC Thanks Jennifer I will join. BTW I now cannot make it to BA in time for the ICG meeting, so I will be missing both days. So my apologies in advance for that. The BA meeting will be attended by Alan Barrett, also by others from APNIC/number community as observers. Paul On 26 May 2015, at 8:49, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear ICG Members, > > > > This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #17 is scheduled for: > > > > **Wednesday, 27 May 2015** > > at 05:00-06:00 UTC > > See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1diN3N4 > > Announcement: > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/ > > > > You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the > call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an > email > (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. > Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the > calendar subscription function here: > https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, > please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia > . > > > > Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - > > https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to > mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being > broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to > join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual > meeting room. > > > > Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the > queue. > To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe > Connect > room: > > > > If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, > please let me know. > > > > Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, > FR, > RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. > > Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through > the > Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for > the > global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the > English > stream. > > > > Agenda proposed by Alissa > > 1) Minutes approval for call #16 > > 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing > > 3) ICG timeline > > > > As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any > questions, concerns or need a dial-out. > > > > Thank you! > > > > Best regards > > ICG Secretariat Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Tue May 26 04:24:40 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 12:24:40 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG Call #17 - Wednesday, 27 May 2015, 05:00-06:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <00cc01d09750$90b8ea80$b22abf80$@icgsec.asia> References: <009501d0973d$1797adc0$46c70940$@icgsec.asia> <280A2535-E378-40BD-A717-D6F156DC763B@apnic.net> <00cc01d09750$90b8ea80$b22abf80$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: I will arrive BA airport at 0930am on 19th. Once I check in hotel, I will attend the meeting as soon as possible. Kuo Wu > Jennifer Chung 於 2015年5月26日 09:09 寫道： > > Thank you Paul for the confirmation. > > For everyone who is not able to make it in person, we will have remote > participation available for the ICG sessions in Buenos Aires: the ICG > face-to-face meeting 5 (Thursday 19 June - Friday 20 June) and the wrap-up > session on Thursday 25 June, details to be announced when available from > ICANN. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 8:19 PM > To: Jennifer Chung > Cc: ICG > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG Call #17 - Wednesday, 27 May 2015, > 05:00-06:00 UTC > > Thanks Jennifer I will join. > > BTW I now cannot make it to BA in time for the ICG meeting, so I will be > missing both days. So my apologies in advance for that. The BA meeting > will be attended by Alan Barrett, also by others from APNIC/number community > as observers. > > Paul > > > > On 26 May 2015, at 8:49, Jennifer Chung wrote: > >> Dear ICG Members, >> >> >> >> This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #17 is scheduled for: >> >> >> >> **Wednesday, 27 May 2015** >> >> at 05:00-06:00 UTC >> >> See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1diN3N4 >> >> Announcement: >> https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/ >> >> >> >> You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the >> call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an >> email >> (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. >> Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the >> calendar subscription function here: >> https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, >> please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia >> . >> >> >> >> Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - >> >> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to >> mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being >> broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to >> join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual >> meeting room. >> >> >> >> Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the >> queue. >> To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe >> Connect >> room: >> >> >> >> If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, >> please let me know. >> >> >> >> Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, >> FR, >> RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. >> >> Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through >> the >> Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for >> the >> global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the >> English >> stream. >> >> >> >> Agenda proposed by Alissa >> >> 1) Minutes approval for call #16 >> >> 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing >> >> 3) ICG timeline >> >> >> >> As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any >> questions, concerns or need a dial-out. >> >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> ICG Secretariat Team >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Tue May 26 04:34:32 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 00:34:32 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <5a89ec2830954bb49e10f66212999e5a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> <304cce5fc309402db2b4f4197b9f6ee4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <3A83AF32-36B4-4EE4-9980-6C8DC74E2E2D@gmail.com> <5a89ec2830954bb49e10f66212999e5a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <5563F7D8.6000801@oracle.com> The role of the ICG is to assemble proposals from the operational communities and to help develop the overall stakeholder community support for the combined proposal. If there are going to be issues arising from ICANN it would be best to surface them early as they may impact our ability to deliver a proposal with consensus across communities. As to the lat point raised by Manal, we have just gone through an exercise whereby we were trying to impress on ICANN the importance of participating transparently through the community processes, so we may have already addressed the issue... Best regards, Joe On 5/25/2015 5:25 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > I believe ICANN input should be factored in .. The more the input received and the more the coordination efforts exerted, the better and more accurate the results .. > It's clear that the ICG has direct coordination channels with the 3 OCs and an indirect coordination channel with CCWG-Accountability, through CWG-IANA .. > I think the question now is, should ICG chair/co-chairs (to which the letter was addressed) seek direct input from ICANN or rely on ICANN input being factored in indirectly through feedback provided to CCWG-Accountability/CWG-IANA? > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 5:56 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > > Dear All > I do not support that view . It may have negative impact as they may say something in contradiction to the OCs Pls kindly id not take that proposal ICANN is represented in ICG and their views without being directly asked would be considered by ICG when required Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 25 May 2015, at 16:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> I think that's a very good idea. Since ICANN may have to modify its bylaws, separate out its IANA department and take other actions, it would be very good to get its own estimate of time required. >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the >>> strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. >>> Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN >>> will have a role in the implementation together with the respective >>> operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in >>> discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy >>> to input their view for ICG to consider. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Kuo Wu >>> >>>> Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： >>>> >>>> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this >>>> isn’t >>> text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree >>> on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG >>> reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and >>> seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to >>> do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and >>> Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our >>> liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an >>> updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. >>>> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated >>>> the text >>> with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek >>> the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call >>> although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an >>> answer. Any objections to proceeding? >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>> communities believe they will need to complete proposal development >>> and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >>> complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" >>>>> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND >>> NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL >>> DEVELOPMENT >>>>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>>>>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to >>>>>>> the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>>>>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >>>>>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >>>>>>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>>>>> >>>>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, >>>>>> there, Keith ;-( >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From liman at netnod.se Tue May 26 08:56:55 2015 From: liman at netnod.se (Lars-Johan Liman) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:56:55 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] REMINDER: ICG Call #17 - Wednesday, 27 May 2015, 05:00-06:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <280A2535-E378-40BD-A717-D6F156DC763B@apnic.net> (Paul Wilson's message of "Tue, 26 May 2015 10:18:30 +1000") References: <009501d0973d$1797adc0$46c70940$@icgsec.asia> <280A2535-E378-40BD-A717-D6F156DC763B@apnic.net> Message-ID: <22d21naf8o.fsf@limac.netnod.se> pwilson at apnic.net: > BTW I now cannot make it to BA in time for the ICG meeting, so I will > be missing both days. So my apologies in advance for that. This is unfortunately true for me too. My sincere apologies. Best regards, /Lars-Johan Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman at netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #---------------------------------------------------------------------- From jjs at dyalog.net Tue May 26 09:50:59 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 11:50:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <00a501d09742$c7ab6a80$57023f80$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <2526177.196.1432633855772.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejenjacques> Hello Jennifer & All, under item 1) Letter to ICG from NTIA, page 4 of the Minutes, it seems to me that Milton, in the chat, had supported my comment about the ambiguity surrounding the term "implementation". If Milton agrees, could that be noted in the Minutes? Thanks. I agree with all the rest. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Mardi 26 Mai 2015 01:30:24 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, Please find attached v3 of the draft minutes of the 19 May call. This is available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1HHlU0c I have incorporated edits as requested by Lynn, Milton and Manal, further details below: - Page 2: third bullet response, Milton’s edits inserted - Page 4: first main bullet, Manal’s edits inserted - Page 5: last sub-bullet: Wolf-Ulrich’s response edited for clarity per Milton’s request - Page 5: agenda item 3. reference and link added to the May 12 letter ICG sent to the ICANN Board Chair per Lynn’s request Milton – you had an additional query regarding Alissa’s question at the bottom of page 4, last bullet. Perhaps Alissa can suggest edits for clarification? For reference, this exchange starts at 1:09:13 of the call 16 recording (in English) which can be found here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ . Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: RE: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4 . Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM To: 'ICG' Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Tue May 26 10:06:35 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 06:06:35 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1FE674D6-EF4A-4BD3-9AFC-C6FF90C21B47@LStAmour.org> I support Kuo-Wei's point/request below. ICANN staff and board will have various implementation responsibilities and it would be very useful to receive their input. Lynn On May 25, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > Alissa, > > As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN will have a role in the implementation together with the respective operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy to input their view for ICG to consider. > > Thanks. > > Kuo Wu > >> Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： >> >> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. >> >> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding? >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> --- >> >> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" >> >> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: >> >>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>>> >>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >>>>> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >>>>> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >>>>> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >>>>> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>>> >>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Tue May 26 10:40:27 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 06:40:27 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <1FE674D6-EF4A-4BD3-9AFC-C6FF90C21B47@LStAmour.org> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> <1FE674D6-EF4A-4BD3-9AFC-C6FF90C21B47@LStAmour.org> Message-ID: Although ICANN implementation time I think should be included in the timeline each OC have in their proposal, and that we have requested ICANN and everyone else to participate in the processes each OC have defined, I do think we absolutely should recognize the wishes by Kuo-Wei just like I would suggest we listen to requests any ICG member might have regarding ICG interaction with whoever the ICG member is appointed by or represent (directly, explicitly or indirectly, implicitly). We are not the ones that should prescribe how interactions and communication work in each community we need information from, and if there is a request for outreach -- which I interpret this as -- I think we should reach out. Specifically in this case where I see ICG have already reached consensus on the specific role the by ICANN appointed members have. So, yes, I am [speaking personally] also supporting reaching out, as a way to ensure whatever time ICANN need is counted in whatever calculations are made by the OC's, by us etc. Patrik On 26 May 2015, at 6:06, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > I support Kuo-Wei's point/request below. ICANN staff and board will have various implementation responsibilities and it would be very useful to receive their input. > > Lynn > > > On May 25, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > >> Alissa, >> >> As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN will have a role in the implementation together with the respective operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy to input their view for ICG to consider. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： >>> >>> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. >>> >>> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> --- >>> >>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" >>> >>> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> >>>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>>>> >>>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >>>>>> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >>>>>> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >>>>>> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >>>>>> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>>>> >>>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Tue May 26 12:08:11 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 12:08:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <985983668.1860799.1432642091163.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> All,I can see Kavouss' point of view, since ICG is expected to submit the final proposal to NTIA through ICANN, ICG may have little or no control over what ICANN Board and Staff will do thereafter.I assume the input from OCs would factor in the actions to be taken by ICANN in implementing their recommendations/proposals.  I would also think that the best answers to the questions would be gathered from the OCs whose proposals ICG is  coordinating and in line with RFP we earlier issued. The ICANN Board Liaison to ICG is free to ask same questions  to his community who may have feed the OCs with its actions regarding implementation processes, and bring back information to the ICG. To be clear, my point is that whatever input ICANN would have regarding the implementation process would be indirectly submitted to the ICG through the OCs.Mary Uduma On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:40 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: Although ICANN implementation time I think should be included in the timeline each OC have in their proposal, and that we have requested ICANN and everyone else to participate in the processes each OC have defined, I do think we absolutely should recognize the wishes by Kuo-Wei just like I would suggest we listen to requests any ICG member might have regarding ICG interaction with whoever the ICG member is appointed by or represent (directly, explicitly or indirectly, implicitly). We are not the ones that should prescribe how interactions and communication work in each community we need information from, and if there is a request for outreach -- which I interpret this as -- I think we should reach out. Specifically in this case where I see ICG have already reached consensus on the specific role the by ICANN appointed members have. So, yes, I am [speaking personally] also supporting reaching out, as a way to ensure whatever time ICANN need is counted in whatever calculations are made by the OC's, by us etc.   Patrik On 26 May 2015, at 6:06, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > I support Kuo-Wei's point/request below.  ICANN staff and board will have various implementation responsibilities and it would be very useful to receive their input. > > Lynn > > > On May 25, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Wu Kuo-Wei wrote: > >> Alissa, >> >> As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN will have a role in the implementation together with the respective operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy to input their view for ICG to consider. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Kuo Wu >> >>> Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： >>> >>> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this isn’t text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. >>> >>> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated the text with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an answer. Any objections to proceeding? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alissa >>> >>> --- >>> >>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" >>> >>> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: >>> >>>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>>>> >>>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities >>>>>> have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >>>>>> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start >>>>>> to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >>>>>> community will need to complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>>>> >>>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, there, Keith ;-( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Tue May 26 13:53:03 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 09:53:03 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <0F0AD4ED-9702-46A9-AA78-E720E6E35723@LStAmour.org> Hi Alissa, I think the timetable is probably the best we can estimate at the moment, and I like the goal of being complete for Dublin. At the same time though, I wonder about the aggregated impacts of summer breaks (in the northern hemisphere), and comments from other ICG members would be helpful in judging whether this is a serious concern. Having said all this, I like the forcing factor of the Dublin ICANN meeting, as well as your approach of explaining contingencies when we respond to NTIA and could support this. Best, Lynn On May 21, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from NTIA. > > I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: > > *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own > *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the communities to make edits if necessary > *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate summer holidays) > *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … > *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary > *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal > > The total ends up being about 4 months. > > I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. > > I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our May 27 call to continue the discussion. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Tue May 26 08:06:34 2015 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:06:34 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <5563F7D8.6000801@oracle.com> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> <304cce5fc309402db2b4f4197b9f6ee4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <3A83AF32-36B4-4EE4-9980-6C8DC74E2E2D@gmail.com> <5a89ec2830954bb49e10f66212999e5a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <5563F7D8.6000801@oracle.com> Message-ID: <59C038D2-2812-461D-B8DA-3A518315FE21@t-online.de> In the end we have to develop a timeline relying on the OC's timelines. Supposed it comes to co-ordination calls where timelines are to be "negotiated" between ICG and OC's then ICANN can't be accepted as an additional partner at the table. Nevertheless in order to surface potential ICANN issues as early as possible - as Joe is suggesting- we should send them a separate letter, too. But we should make clear that the ICG answer to NTIA is been coordinated with the relevant communities only. Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 26.05.2015 um 06:34 schrieb joseph alhadeff : > > The role of the ICG is to assemble proposals from the operational communities and to help develop the overall stakeholder community support for the combined proposal. If there are going to be issues arising from ICANN it would be best to surface them early as they may impact our ability to deliver a proposal with consensus across communities. As to the lat point raised by Manal, we have just gone through an exercise whereby we were trying to impress on ICANN the importance of participating transparently through the community processes, so we may have already addressed the issue... > > Best regards, > > Joe > >> On 5/25/2015 5:25 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: >> I believe ICANN input should be factored in .. The more the input received and the more the coordination efforts exerted, the better and more accurate the results .. >> It's clear that the ICG has direct coordination channels with the 3 OCs and an indirect coordination channel with CCWG-Accountability, through CWG-IANA .. >> I think the question now is, should ICG chair/co-chairs (to which the letter was addressed) seek direct input from ICANN or rely on ICANN input being factored in indirectly through feedback provided to CCWG-Accountability/CWG-IANA? >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 5:56 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >> Dear All >> I do not support that view . It may have negative impact as they may say something in contradiction to the OCs Pls kindly id not take that proposal ICANN is represented in ICG and their views without being directly asked would be considered by ICG when required Regards >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 25 May 2015, at 16:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> I think that's a very good idea. Since ICANN may have to modify its bylaws, separate out its IANA department and take other actions, it would be very good to get its own estimate of time required. >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the >>>> strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan. >>>> Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN >>>> will have a role in the implementation together with the respective >>>> operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in >>>> discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy >>>> to input their view for ICG to consider. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Kuo Wu >>>> >>>>> Alissa Cooper 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道： >>>>> >>>>> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this >>>>> isn’t >>>> text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree >>>> on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG >>>> reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and >>>> seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to >>>> do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and >>>> Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our >>>> liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an >>>> updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation. >>>>> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated >>>>> the text >>>> with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek >>>> the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call >>>> although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an >>>> answer. Any objections to proceeding? >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>> communities believe they will need to complete proposal development >>>> and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the >>>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >>>> complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?" >>>>>> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND >>>> NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS? >>>>>> Joe >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational >>>>>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL >>>> DEVELOPMENT >>>>>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the >>>>>>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to >>>>>>>> the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >>>>>>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >>>>>>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >>>>>>>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, >>>>>>> there, Keith ;-( >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Tue May 26 15:08:31 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 11:08:31 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <2526177.196.1432633855772.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejenjacques> References: <00a501d09742$c7ab6a80$57023f80$@icgsec.asia> <2526177.196.1432633855772.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@airdejenjacques> Message-ID: <006b01d097c5$d758fff0$860affd0$@icgsec.asia> Dear Jean-Jacques and All, Please find attached v4 of the draft minutes of the 19 May call. This is also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1Q8oqi3. I have incorporated Jean-Jacques' requested edit on page 4 and added Milton's support as "Adobe Connect chat: Mueller agreed with Subrenat". Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:51 AM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Hello Jennifer & All, under item 1) Letter to ICG from NTIA, page 4 of the Minutes, it seems to me that Milton, in the chat, had supported my comment about the ambiguity surrounding the term "implementation". If Milton agrees, could that be noted in the Minutes? Thanks. I agree with all the rest. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Mardi 26 Mai 2015 01:30:24 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, Please find attached v3 of the draft minutes of the 19 May call. This is available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1HHlU0c I have incorporated edits as requested by Lynn, Milton and Manal, further details below: - Page 2: third bullet response, Milton’s edits inserted - Page 4: first main bullet, Manal’s edits inserted - Page 5: last sub-bullet: Wolf-Ulrich’s response edited for clarity per Milton’s request - Page 5: agenda item 3. reference and link added to the May 12 letter ICG sent to the ICANN Board Chair per Lynn’s request Milton – you had an additional query regarding Alissa’s question at the bottom of page 4, last bullet. Perhaps Alissa can suggest edits for clarification? For reference, this exchange starts at 1:09:13 of the call 16 recording (in English) which can be found here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ . Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: RE: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4 . Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM To: 'ICG' Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-19-may-2015-draft-v4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41466 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 26 15:10:51 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 08:10:51 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <00a501d09742$c7ab6a80$57023f80$@icgsec.asia> References: <00a501d09742$c7ab6a80$57023f80$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: I’m not sure what Milton’s query was (did it go to the list?) but the bullet at the bottom of page 4 looks like an accurate reflection of the discussion to me. I was confused about Wolf-Ulrich’s point and he clarified it. Alissa On May 25, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached v3 of the draft minutes of the 19 May call. This is available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1HHlU0c > > I have incorporated edits as requested by Lynn, Milton and Manal, further details below: > > - Page 2: third bullet response, Milton’s edits inserted > - Page 4: first main bullet, Manal’s edits inserted > - Page 5: last sub-bullet: Wolf-Ulrich’s response edited for clarity per Milton’s request > - Page 5: agenda item 3. reference and link added to the May 12 letter ICG sent to the ICANN Board Chair per Lynn’s request > > Milton – you had an additional query regarding Alissa’s question at the bottom of page 4, last bullet. Perhaps Alissa can suggest edits for clarification? For reference, this exchange starts at 1:09:13 of the call 16 recording (in English) which can be found here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: RE: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > Dear All, > > Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > Dear All, > > The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 26 15:15:53 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 08:15:53 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 In-Reply-To: References: <301A3E08-0B13-45E0-8775-E5307D586068@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <36216E1E-61A8-4D96-993A-4AE7138FAE6D@cooperw.in> Hi Manal, On May 25, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Many thanks Alissa .. Sounds good to me .. > I can see that we have only one call remaining, on Jun 10th, before BA .. > Should we start setting our BA f2f meeting agenda or do you plan to discuss it over email? We will discuss it over email and on the June 10 call. Much of it depends on what happens between now and then, so it will be easier to discuss if we wait a bit. > > On another note, reference the minutes of the 19th May 2015 teleconference, page 5 section 5, the sentence reading "She also confirmed that there will be an ICG wrap-up session during ICANN meeting on June 25.", is the wrap-up session on the 25th on? I got the feeling that the idea was not supported and have planned my flights accordingly .. Anyway, it would be helpful to know the planned time and length of this wrap-up session as soon as possible .. We are keeping the June 25 session on the calendar so that those who can make it will have space and time to work on any wrap-up items we may have from the week, but the meeting will not be decisional in nature. For example, it might be a good time for us chairs to work on a response to Larry’s letter while we are all in the same room together. We realize that a lot of folks may not be able to make it since it also conflicts with other sessions they will need to attend. Alissa > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:41 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 > > Please send edits/feedback on the following: > > 1) Minutes approval for call #16 > > 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing > > 3) ICG timeline > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Tue May 26 16:06:15 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 12:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <51f5925fa0de42b18f496108b6b7094b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> <51f5925fa0de42b18f496108b6b7094b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <009901d097cd$e5e340f0$b1a9c2d0$@icgsec.asia> FYI, Milton's requested edits to the 19 May call minutes below: From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:14 AM To: Jennifer Chung Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Jennifer Very detailed, clear minutes. Thanks. A few modifications: You quote me from the chat as saying "Mueller stated that he '[does not] think that ICANN is the right entity to ask about implementation'. That is a correct quote but in context, what I meant by "ask about implementation" was actually "ask about _what is meant by_ implementation." So please put that in. Obviously we need to ask ICANN about their timeframe for implementation. I am not sure what this statement (it's on the bottom of page 4) means: "Cooper asked .whether it is the plan to transition away from the PTI (Post Transition IANA)?" What does it mean to "transition away from the PTI?" Did Alissa really say that? Relatedly, Knoben is quoted as saying "the actual plan needs an estimated 18 months of further development" - is that right? --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM To: 'ICG' Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 26 17:05:53 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:05:53 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <21869F26-7C0D-442B-992F-DD0227AD98EB@cooperw.in> Hi Narelle, I think you are reading things correctly, but we can also take account of present circumstances. It has been more than four months since we received the proposals from the IETF and RIRs, so it seems appropriate to ask for updated information. We also know that some activities have taken place since then (SLA negotiations) that may factor into update time frame estimates. I think we could add a mention of the RFP as a new third sentence in this paragraph: "The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.” Alissa On May 24, 2015, at 11:26 PM, Narelle Clark wrote: > All, > My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. > > Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: > “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any > intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” > > [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.] > > I note the IETF has answered: > “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are > anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods > proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the > RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen > issues that might arise as a result of other changes. > > What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any > supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements > outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” > > The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. > > I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. > > Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf > > Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. > > Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. > > My apologies for not raising this earlier. > > > > Narelle > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" > > Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). > > I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > --------------------------- > > Dear IANAPLAN WG, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. > > If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > — > > Dear CRISP team, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. > > If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > — > > Dear CWG, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. > > If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue May 26 17:05:13 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:05:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <59C038D2-2812-461D-B8DA-3A518315FE21@t-online.de> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954980FE8C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <923373AC-3EE2-4EFC-A652-A59F10B7FD2D@LStAmour.org> <555D9B97.8030203@oracle.com> <1971C8C4-3E31-48FD-9FD4-DB861A35432C@cooperw.in> <168F61F6-08E7-4005-8D40-303C77CC460A@gmail.com> <304cce5fc309402db2b4f4197b9f6ee4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <3A83AF32-36B4-4EE4-9980-6C8DC74E2E2D@gmail.com> <5a89ec2830954bb49e10f66212999e5a@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <5563F7D8.6000801@oracle.com> <59C038D2-2812-461D-B8DA-3A518315FE21@t-online.de> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > > In the end we have to develop a timeline relying on the OC's timelines. > Supposed it comes to co-ordination calls where timelines are to be > "negotiated" between ICG and OC's then ICANN can't be accepted as > an additional partner at the table. Of course. ICANN cannot and should not "negotiate" on behalf of the entire names OC. My point was simply that some of the implementation items require legal or board actions from ICANN corporate and I see no harm in asking them how long they think it would take them to do it. --MM From alissa at cooperw.in Tue May 26 17:07:45 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> <79B9A82E-A9D1-4772-8677-0933E0BD5AC7@oracle.com> Message-ID: <2C8264BB-0A51-4BB1-8C24-D1F28F5E4D6C@cooperw.in> Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence. Alissa On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Alissa, > ]Thank you very much for your effort. > Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment. > I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “Accordingly ……Argentina” > But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely > “please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The reason is that it is necessary to quote the exact language used in NTIA letter relating to implementation . > > May you please reconsider and correct the text > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > 2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : > narelle: > > I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had alluded to previously. > > Best > > Joe > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > >> All, >> >> My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. >> >> >> Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: >> >> “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any >> >> intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” >> >> >> >> [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.] >> >> >> >> I note the IETF has answered: >> >> “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are >> anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods >> >> proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the >> >> RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen >> >> issues that might arise as a result of other changes. >> >> >> >> What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any >> >> supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements >> >> outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” >> >> >> >> The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. >> >> >> >> I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. >> >> >> >> Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf >> >> >> >> Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. >> >> >> >> Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. >> >> >> >> My apologies for not raising this earlier. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >> >> >> Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). >> >> >> >> I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa >> >> >> >> --------------------------- >> >> >> >> Dear IANAPLAN WG, >> >> >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >> >> >> >> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >> >> >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >> >> >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> >> >> >> — >> >> >> >> Dear CRISP team, >> >> >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >> >> >> >> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >> >> >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >> >> >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> >> >> >> — >> >> >> >> Dear CWG, >> >> >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >> >> >> >> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >> >> >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. >> >> >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbashir at mbash.net Tue May 26 17:33:49 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 20:33:49 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <2C8264BB-0A51-4BB1-8C24-D1F28F5E4D6C@cooperw.in> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> <79B9A82E-A9D1-4772-8677-0933E0BD5AC7@oracle.com> <2C8264BB-0A51-4BB1-8C24-D1F28F5E4D6C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: + Kuo-We, i support the proposal to submit the request to ICANN as well. We have been requesting ICANN to participate in the process and provide their input/comments, their input is important to know and factor their implementation time. Regards, Mohamed On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence. > Alissa > > On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: > > Dear Alissa, > ]Thank you very much for your effort. > Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment. > I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA > letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “*Accordingly > ……Argentina”* > But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely > > “*please keep in mind that the United States Government will need > sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified > either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the > transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the > contract.”* The reason is that it is necessary to quote the exact > language used in NTIA letter relating to implementation . > > May you please reconsider and correct the text > > Regards > > Kavouss > > 2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : > >> narelle: >> >> I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of >> the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does >> that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had >> alluded to previously. >> >> Best >> >> Joe >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark >> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation >> timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer >> explicitly from the responses. >> >> Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: >> >> “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to >> take to complete, and any >> >> intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” >> >> >> >> [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie >> “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a >> separate item.] >> >> >> >> I note the IETF has answered: >> >> “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are >> >> anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods >> >> proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the >> >> RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen >> >> issues that might arise as a result of other changes. >> >> >> >> What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any >> >> supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements >> >> outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” >> >> >> >> The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. >> >> >> >> I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. >> >> >> >> Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf >> >> >> >> Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a >> separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a >> dependency. >> >> >> >> Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to >> point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification >> of the time required given the dependency. >> >> >> >> My apologies for not raising this earlier. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Narelle >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper >> *Sent:* Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM >> *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >> >> >> >> Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted >> emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not >> mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already >> complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that >> we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this >> thread). >> >> >> >> I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa >> >> >> >> --------------------------- >> >> >> >> Dear IANAPLAN WG, >> >> >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling < >> http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that >> included the following text: >> >> >> >> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the >> transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >> community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition >> plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the >> three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the >> end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues >> with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. >> In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States >> Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all >> work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as >> prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the >> ending of the contract.” >> >> >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational >> communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and >> implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have >> identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From >> start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >> community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We >> understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your >> best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >> >> >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives >> (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much >> appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in >> June, that would be welcome. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> >> >> >> — >> >> >> >> Dear CRISP team, >> >> >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling < >> http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that >> included the following text: >> >> >> >> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the >> transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >> community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition >> plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the >> three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the >> end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues >> with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. >> In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States >> Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all >> work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as >> prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the >> ending of the contract.” >> >> >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational >> communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and >> implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have >> identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From >> start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >> community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We >> understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your >> best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >> >> >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives >> (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much >> appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in >> June, that would be welcome. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> >> >> >> — >> >> >> >> Dear CWG, >> >> >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling < >> http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that >> included the following text: >> >> >> >> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the >> transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >> community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition >> plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the >> three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the >> end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues >> with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. >> In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States >> Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all >> work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as >> prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the >> ending of the contract.” >> >> >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational >> communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and >> implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have >> identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA >> contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From >> start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your >> community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, >> approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will >> need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these >> time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best >> estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. >> >> >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG >> (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, >> that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate >> to us later in June, that would be welcome. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -- Kind Regards, Mohamed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Tue May 26 19:13:13 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 19:13:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 In-Reply-To: <36216E1E-61A8-4D96-993A-4AE7138FAE6D@cooperw.in> References: <301A3E08-0B13-45E0-8775-E5307D586068@cooperw.in> <36216E1E-61A8-4D96-993A-4AE7138FAE6D@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <8541c6ed88f8407ea676f1dde5357716@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Fair enough .. Thanks Alissa for both clarifications .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:16 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 Hi Manal, On May 25, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Many thanks Alissa .. Sounds good to me .. > I can see that we have only one call remaining, on Jun 10th, before BA .. > Should we start setting our BA f2f meeting agenda or do you plan to discuss it over email? We will discuss it over email and on the June 10 call. Much of it depends on what happens between now and then, so it will be easier to discuss if we wait a bit. > > On another note, reference the minutes of the 19th May 2015 teleconference, page 5 section 5, the sentence reading "She also confirmed that there will be an ICG wrap-up session during ICANN meeting on June 25.", is the wrap-up session on the 25th on? I got the feeling that the idea was not supported and have planned my flights accordingly .. Anyway, it would be helpful to know the planned time and length of this wrap-up session as soon as possible .. We are keeping the June 25 session on the calendar so that those who can make it will have space and time to work on any wrap-up items we may have from the week, but the meeting will not be decisional in nature. For example, it might be a good time for us chairs to work on a response to Larry's letter while we are all in the same room together. We realize that a lot of folks may not be able to make it since it also conflicts with other sessions they will need to attend. Alissa > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:41 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 > > Please send edits/feedback on the following: > > 1) Minutes approval for call #16 > > 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing > > 3) ICG timeline > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 27 02:37:12 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 22:37:12 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Pumpkin Message-ID: <37879F7F-1C15-480A-AD13-4F44B2507160@frobbit.se> I at the moment do not remember whether I have said I can participate or not at this call, but where I am on the planet the time of the call is, as I now feel, such that I would definitely be asleep if I even managed to dial the number. Because of this, I will not be able to participate on ICG Call #17. Best, Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Wed May 27 04:37:03 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:37:03 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <009901d097cd$e5e340f0$b1a9c2d0$@icgsec.asia> References: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> <51f5925fa0de42b18f496108b6b7094b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <009901d097cd$e5e340f0$b1a9c2d0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Jennifer, I made a few small changes to the v4 minutes, which you can see in the markup. Paul. On 27 May 2015, at 2:06, Jennifer Chung wrote: > FYI, Milton's requested edits to the 19 May call minutes below: > > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:14 AM > To: Jennifer Chung > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Jennifer > > Very detailed, clear minutes. Thanks. > > > > A few modifications: > > > > You quote me from the chat as saying "Mueller stated that he '[does > not] > think that ICANN is the right entity to ask about implementation'. > That is a > correct quote but in context, what I meant by "ask about > implementation" was > actually "ask about _what is meant by_ implementation." So please put > that > in. Obviously we need to ask ICANN about their timeframe for > implementation. > > > > > I am not sure what this statement (it's on the bottom of page 4) > means: > "Cooper asked .whether it is the plan to transition away from the PTI > (Post > Transition IANA)?" What does it mean to "transition away from the > PTI?" Did > Alissa really say that? > > > > Relatedly, Knoben is quoted as saying "the actual plan needs an > estimated 18 > months of further development" - is that right? > > > > --MM > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Jennifer Chung > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May > teleconference > (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: > http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Dear All, > > > > The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached > and > also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 27 04:51:27 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 21:51:27 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <2C8264BB-0A51-4BB1-8C24-D1F28F5E4D6C@cooperw.in> References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> <79B9A82E-A9D1-4772-8677-0933E0BD5AC7@oracle.com> <2C8264BB-0A51-4BB1-8C24-D1F28F5E4D6C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: The updated text below incorporates edits in response to Kavouss and Narelle. --- Dear IANAPLAN WG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CRISP team, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed On May 26, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence. > Alissa > > On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> Dear Alissa, >> ]Thank you very much for your effort. >> Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment. >> I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “Accordingly ……Argentina” >> But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely >> “please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The reason is that it is necessary to quote the exact language used in NTIA letter relating to implementation . >> >> May you please reconsider and correct the text >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : >> narelle: >> >> I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had alluded to previously. >> >> Best >> >> Joe >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. >>> >>> >>> Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: >>> >>> “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any >>> >>> intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” >>> >>> >>> >>> [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.] >>> >>> >>> >>> I note the IETF has answered: >>> >>> “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are >>> anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods >>> >>> proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the >>> >>> RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen >>> >>> issues that might arise as a result of other changes. >>> >>> >>> >>> What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any >>> >>> supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements >>> >>> outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. >>> >>> >>> >>> I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. >>> >>> >>> >>> Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. >>> >>> >>> >>> Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. >>> >>> >>> >>> My apologies for not raising this earlier. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Narelle >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>> Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM >>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >>> >>> >>> >>> Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). >>> >>> >>> >>> I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear IANAPLAN WG, >>> >>> >>> >>> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >>> >>> >>> >>> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >>> >>> >>> >>> — >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear CRISP team, >>> >>> >>> >>> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >>> >>> >>> >>> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >>> >>> >>> >>> — >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear CWG, >>> >>> >>> >>> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >>> >>> >>> >>> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Wed May 27 04:53:44 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:53:44 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <601FD8E4-D262-47BA-9EE3-98C9E4CC6112@apnic.net> Alissa, this looks like progress to me. Just one question below. On 22 May 2015, at 7:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline > for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times > but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to > allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we > submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission > to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have > an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from > NTIA. > > I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is > also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: > > *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own > *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the > communities to make edits if necessary I’m not sure how the communities would “make edits” during this short period, or for what reason. I suppose this is suggested in case of conflicts identified, where the ICG may need to request clarifications or modifications from the communities? If so, then I’m not sure it is an “editing” process; it may be better described as a process of “consultation” between the IGC and community representatives, to identify solutions which would be included into the ICG’s plan, and subject to comment in the next step. Also I think this step is not just one of assessing the proposals, but it is in fact the assembly of the single ICG proposal, from those components. I would restate this step as follows: *3 weeks for us to assemble all three proposals together into a single plan, in consultation with communities if necessary regarding any interactions or conflicts Paul. > *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment > period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate > summer holidays) > *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … > *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary > *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal > > The total ends up being about 4 months. > > I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the > process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, > if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are > contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an > estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four > months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN > meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos > Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. > > I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use > our May 27 call to continue the discussion. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > [TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx] > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 27 04:54:39 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 00:54:39 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 17 - audio stream and phone bridge technical difficulties, please join using Adobe Connect Message-ID: <013c01d09839$3dc25c50$b94714f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Due to technical difficulties with the Adigo operators, ICG Call 17 which will be held in 6 minutes will only be in English. Translated transcripts of the call in the different languages will be available at a later date on the ICG Call archives here: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ . Participants may join the call by Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed May 27 05:41:26 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 07:41:26 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local> <79B9A82E-A9D1-4772-8677-0933E0BD5AC7@oracle.com> <2C8264BB-0A51-4BB1-8C24-D1F28F5E4D6C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Dear Mohamed We have A formal representative from the Board. Who actively participate in our discussion . We gave Bruce in CCWG who acts as Liaison between the Board and CCWG. CCWG has never send any formal letter to the Board to ask how they think of the implementation. I do object to ask in a formal way any views from the Board in this regard. Let us act independently . At later stage, once we received replies from OCs we may consider the necessity to seek views from the Bostd. regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 26 May 2015, at 19:33, Mohamed El Bashir wrote: > > + Kuo-We, i support the proposal to submit the request to ICANN as well. > We have been requesting ICANN to participate in the process and provide their input/comments, their input is important to know and factor their implementation time. > > Regards, > Mohamed > >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence. >> Alissa >> >>> On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> >>> Dear Alissa, >>> ]Thank you very much for your effort. >>> Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment. >>> I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “Accordingly ……Argentina” >>> But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely >>> “please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The reason is that it is necessary to quote the exact language used in NTIA letter relating to implementation . >>> May you please reconsider and correct the text >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : >>>> narelle: >>>> >>>> I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had alluded to previously. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: >>>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: >>>>> >>>>> “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any >>>>> >>>>> intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I note the IETF has answered: >>>>> >>>>> “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are >>>>> anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods >>>>> >>>>> proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the >>>>> >>>>> RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen >>>>> >>>>> issues that might arise as a result of other changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any >>>>> >>>>> supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements >>>>> >>>>> outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My apologies for not raising this earlier. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Narelle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>>> Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Alissa >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear IANAPLAN WG, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear CRISP team, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear CWG, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > -- > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed May 27 05:58:57 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 07:58:57 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: <1453DDD0-A0BB-4222-B6AB-061EB2B6B305@cooperw.in><7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCB9ABFB3@ACCAN01.accan.local><79B9A82E-A9D1-4772-8677-0933E0BD5AC7@oracle.com><2C8264BB-0A51-4BB1-8C24-D1F28F5E4D6C@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Kavouss, sorry to having you missed on the call today Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:41 AM To: Mohamed El Bashir Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Dear Mohamed We have A formal representative from the Board. Who actively participate in our discussion . We gave Bruce in CCWG who acts as Liaison between the Board and CCWG. CCWG has never send any formal letter to the Board to ask how they think of the implementation. I do object to ask in a formal way any views from the Board in this regard. Let us act independently . At later stage, once we received replies from OCs we may consider the necessity to seek views from the Bostd. regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 26 May 2015, at 19:33, Mohamed El Bashir wrote: + Kuo-We, i support the proposal to submit the request to ICANN as well. We have been requesting ICANN to participate in the process and provide their input/comments, their input is important to know and factor their implementation time. Regards, Mohamed On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence. Alissa On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Alissa, ]Thank you very much for your effort. Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment. I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “Accordingly ……Argentina” But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely “please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The reason is that it is necessary to quote the exact language used in NTIA letter relating to implementation . May you please reconsider and correct the text Regards Kavouss 2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : narelle: I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had alluded to previously. Best Joe Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: All, My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.] I note the IETF has answered: “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen issues that might arise as a result of other changes. What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. My apologies for not raising this earlier. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. Thanks, Alissa --------------------------- Dear IANAPLAN WG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CRISP team, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -- Kind Regards, Mohamed _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Wed May 27 06:05:32 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 06:05:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2089155361.128788.1432706732798.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you Alissa, just a minor point on the first line where you wrote "I" ask. Would it not be better you change it to "we"  ask since the Chairs are writing the letter. Mary Uduma On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 5:51 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: The updated text below incorporates edits in response to Kavouss and Narelle. --- Dear IANAPLAN WG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks,Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CRISP team, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks,Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks,Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed On May 26, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence.Alissa On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Alissa,]Thank you very much for your effort.Perhaps I was not clear or youmisunderstood my comment.I asked that you kindly include in the draftthe exact quotation from NTIA letter to you from the second paragraph startingwith “Accordingly ……Argentina”But you have quoted the last part ofthat paragraph namely “pleasekeep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time toevaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG andthe CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to beimplemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The reason is that  it is necessary to quote the exact languageused in NTIA letter relating to implementation . Mayyou please reconsider and correct the text RegardsKavouss 2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : narelle: I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had alluded to previously. Best Joe Sent from my iPad On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: All,My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. Part IV last bullet point from the RFP:“Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.] I note the IETF has answered:“   As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are   anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods   proposed by the IETF to test.  The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the   RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen   issues that might arise as a result of other changes.    What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any   supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements   outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. My apologies for not raising this earlier.   Narelle  From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. Thanks,Alissa --------------------------- Dear IANAPLAN WG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling  that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks,Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CRISP team, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling  that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks,Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling  that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks,Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed  _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 27 06:27:42 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 02:27:42 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 17: Chat Transcript and Attendance list Message-ID: <017b01d09846$3dc863e0$b9592ba0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 17. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: ICG Members Alissa Cooper (IETF) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Jari Arkko (IETF) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Michael Niebel (GAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Russ Housley (IAB) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Apologies Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Alan Barrett (NRO) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) James Bladel (GNSO) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Call 17 Chat transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 88510 bytes Desc: not available URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Wed May 27 07:48:57 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 07:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <2089155361.128788.1432706732798.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2089155361.128788.1432706732798.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <38d9bdc46a5e41278c7ad69bb826ecbb@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear Mary .. The first paragraph is a quote from the NTIA letter .. Kind regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:06 AM To: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Thank you Alissa, just a minor point on the first line where you wrote "I" ask. Would it not be better you change it to "we" ask since the Chairs are writing the letter. Mary Uduma On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 5:51 AM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: The updated text below incorporates edits in response to Kavouss and Narelle. --- Dear IANAPLAN WG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CRISP team, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed On May 26, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence. Alissa On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: Dear Alissa, ]Thank you very much for your effort. Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment. I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “Accordingly ……Argentina” But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely “please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The reason is that it is necessary to quote the exact language used in NTIA letter relating to implementation . May you please reconsider and correct the text Regards Kavouss 2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff >: narelle: I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had alluded to previously. Best Joe Sent from my iPad On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark > wrote: All, My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.” [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.] I note the IETF has answered: “ As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen issues that might arise as a result of other changes. What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.” The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question. I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete. Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency. Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency. My apologies for not raising this earlier. Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread). I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call. Thanks, Alissa --------------------------- Dear IANAPLAN WG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CRISP team, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed — Dear CWG, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed May 27 08:08:17 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:08:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 In-Reply-To: <8541c6ed88f8407ea676f1dde5357716@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <13674031.103.1432714095285.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Chairs and All, please accept my apologies for not attending the call a few hours ago. I was taken ill and would not have been a good participant. But I've taken medication and am now on the mend. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Alissa Cooper" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mardi 26 Mai 2015 21:13:13 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 Fair enough .. Thanks Alissa for both clarifications .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:16 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 Hi Manal, On May 25, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > Many thanks Alissa .. Sounds good to me .. > I can see that we have only one call remaining, on Jun 10th, before BA .. > Should we start setting our BA f2f meeting agenda or do you plan to discuss it over email? We will discuss it over email and on the June 10 call. Much of it depends on what happens between now and then, so it will be easier to discuss if we wait a bit. > > On another note, reference the minutes of the 19th May 2015 teleconference, page 5 section 5, the sentence reading "She also confirmed that there will be an ICG wrap-up session during ICANN meeting on June 25.", is the wrap-up session on the 25th on? I got the feeling that the idea was not supported and have planned my flights accordingly .. Anyway, it would be helpful to know the planned time and length of this wrap-up session as soon as possible .. We are keeping the June 25 session on the calendar so that those who can make it will have space and time to work on any wrap-up items we may have from the week, but the meeting will not be decisional in nature. For example, it might be a good time for us chairs to work on a response to Larry's letter while we are all in the same room together. We realize that a lot of folks may not be able to make it since it also conflicts with other sessions they will need to attend. Alissa > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:41 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #17 - May 27 > > Please send edits/feedback on the following: > > 1) Minutes approval for call #16 > > 2) Emails to OCs regarding timing > > 3) ICG timeline > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mnuduma at yahoo.com Wed May 27 08:38:11 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 08:38:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Implementation" In-Reply-To: <38d9bdc46a5e41278c7ad69bb826ecbb@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <38d9bdc46a5e41278c7ad69bb826ecbb@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <1205148857.152024.1432715892072.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Oh, my mistake.  Reading too many materials at odd time. Thanks Manal for the correction. Ignore my mail Alissa. I am very sorry Mary Uduma On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:49 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: #yiv6023862218 #yiv6023862218 -- _filtered #yiv6023862218 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6023862218 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6023862218 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6023862218 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6023862218 {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv6023862218 #yiv6023862218 p.yiv6023862218MsoNormal, #yiv6023862218 li.yiv6023862218MsoNormal, #yiv6023862218 div.yiv6023862218MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv6023862218 a:link, #yiv6023862218 span.yiv6023862218MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6023862218 a:visited, #yiv6023862218 span.yiv6023862218MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6023862218 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv6023862218 p.yiv6023862218MsoAcetate, #yiv6023862218 li.yiv6023862218MsoAcetate, #yiv6023862218 div.yiv6023862218MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv6023862218 span.yiv6023862218HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv6023862218 span.yiv6023862218EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv6023862218 span.yiv6023862218BalloonTextChar {}#yiv6023862218 .yiv6023862218MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv6023862218 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv6023862218 div.yiv6023862218WordSection1 {}#yiv6023862218 Dear Mary .. The first paragraph is a quote from the NTIA letter .. Kind regards --Manal   From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org]On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:06 AM To: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"   Thank you Alissa, just a minor point on the first line where you wrote "I" ask. Would it not be better you change it to "we"  ask since the Chairs are writing the letter.   Mary Uduma     On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 5:51 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:   The updated text below incorporates edits in response to Kavouss and Narelle.   ---   Dear IANAPLAN WG,   The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text:   "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”   The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.   If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome.   Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed   —   Dear CRISP team,   The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text:   "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”   The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.   If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome.   Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed   —   Dear CWG,   The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text:   "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”   The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.   If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome.   Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed     On May 26, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Sure, I can add in the first part of the sentence. Alissa   On May 25, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Alissa, ]Thank you very much for your effort. Perhaps I was not clear or you misunderstood my comment. I asked that you kindly include in the draft the exact quotation from NTIA letter to you from the second paragraph starting with “Accordingly ……Argentina” But you have quoted the last part of that paragraph namely “please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The reason is that  it is necessary to quote the exact language used in NTIA letter relating to implementation . May you please reconsider and correct the text Regards Kavouss   2015-05-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff : narelle:   I think it is useful to get a more specific and positive affirmation of the Larry's request from the communities and I believe Alissa's letter does that without creating some of the needless constrains which Partrik had alluded to previously.   Best   Joe Sent from my iPad On May 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: All, My recollection of the RFP was that the question of implementation timeframe was in the RFP we issued and I expected we would get an answer explicitly from the responses. Part IV last bullet point from the RFP: “Description of how long the proposals in Section II I are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before they are completed.”   [In hindsight that “may” should have been a “must” or “are required”, ie “immediate milestones that are required to occur before…” but that is a separate item.]   I note the IETF has answered: “   As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are    anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods    proposed by the IETF to test.  The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the    RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen    issues that might arise as a result of other changes.      What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any    supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements    outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.”   The RIRs do not seem to have responded to this question.   I would therefore think the RFP response isn’t complete.   Have I missed something here? The RFP as issued is this, isn’t it: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf   Yet both the IETF and the RIR responses don’t have the answer as a separate item. The IETF has answered the question, but has noted a dependency.   Therefore, I would prefer the wording to go back to these communities to point out the answer is missing from the RFP, or requesting clarification of the time required given the dependency.   My apologies for not raising this earlier.       Narelle     From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org]On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 8:22 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"   Following on the suggestions of Manal, Kavouss, Wolf-Ulrich, I’ve drafted emails below to send to the OCs. The ones for IANAPLAN and CRISP do not mention the proposal completion phase since their proposals are already complete. In all of the emails I’ve added one sentence about the fact that we’re looking for time estimates (based on what Patrik has said in this thread).   I’d like to approve these for sending during our May 27 call.   Thanks, Alissa   ---------------------------   Dear IANAPLAN WG,   The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling  that included the following text:   "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”   The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.   If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome.   Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed   —   Dear CRISP team,   The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling  that included the following text:   "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”   The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.   If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome.   Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed   —   Dear CWG,   The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling  that included the following text:   "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”   The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates.   If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome.   Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed   _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org     _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org   _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 27 10:52:20 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 06:52:20 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 17: Chat Transcript and Attendance list In-Reply-To: <017b01d09846$3dc863e0$b9592ba0$@icgsec.asia> References: <017b01d09846$3dc863e0$b9592ba0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: FWIW, I read through the transcript, and see you had a good constructive call while I was sleeping. Well done! Patrik On 27 May 2015, at 2:27, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 17. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies: > > > > ICG Members > > Alissa Cooper (IETF) > > Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) > > Keith Davidson (ccNSO) > > Russ Mundy (SSAC) > > Mary Uduma (ccNSO) > > Jari Arkko (IETF) > > Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) > > Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) > > Lynn St Amour (IAB) > > Manal Ismail (GAC) > > Michael Niebel (GAC) > > Narelle Clark (ISOC) > > Paul Wilson (NRO) > > Russ Housley (IAB) > > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) > > Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) > > Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) > > > > Liaisons > > Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) > > Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) > > > > Apologies > > Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) > > Patrik Fältström (SSAC) > > Alan Barrett (NRO) > > Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) > > Demi Getschko (ISOC) > > Hartmut Glaser (ASO) > > Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) > > Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) > > Martin Boyle (ccNSO) > > Milton Mueller (GNSO) > > James Bladel (GNSO) > > Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) > > Thomas Schneider (GAC) > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > [ICG Call 17 Chat transcript.pdf] > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed May 27 12:49:25 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:49:25 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: <601FD8E4-D262-47BA-9EE3-98C9E4CC6112@apnic.net> References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> <601FD8E4-D262-47BA-9EE3-98C9E4CC6112@apnic.net> Message-ID: Dear Alissa, Dear All, Please note that there is no general understanding of the term"Implementation " I asked that a sentence be considered to indicate our understanding of that term and let NTIA confirm or otherwise our understanding Regards Kavouss 2015-05-27 6:53 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson : > Alissa, this looks like progress to me. Just one question below. > > On 22 May 2015, at 7:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline for >> finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times but I >> don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to allocate for >> the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we submit the final >> combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission to NTIA. We need not >> nail this down precisely, but we do need to have an estimate that we can >> factor into our response to the letter from NTIA. >> >> I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is >> also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: >> >> *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own >> *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the >> communities to make edits if necessary >> > > I’m not sure how the communities would “make edits” during this short > period, or for what reason. I suppose this is suggested in case of > conflicts identified, where the ICG may need to request clarifications or > modifications from the communities? If so, then I’m not sure it is an > “editing” process; it may be better described as a process of > “consultation” between the IGC and community representatives, to identify > solutions which would be included into the ICG’s plan, and subject to > comment in the next step. > > Also I think this step is not just one of assessing the proposals, but it > is in fact the assembly of the single ICG proposal, from those components. > > I would restate this step as follows: > > *3 weeks for us to assemble all three proposals together into a single > plan, in consultation with communities if necessary regarding any > interactions or conflicts > > Paul. > > > *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment >> period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate summer >> holidays) >> *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … >> *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary >> *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal >> >> The total ends up being about 4 months. >> >> I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the >> process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, if >> the communities need more time, if the public comments received are >> contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an estimate and >> explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four months is also >> approximately the amount of time between ICANN meetings, so if we receive >> the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos Aires meeting we can aim to finish >> at the Dublin meeting. >> >> I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our May >> 27 call to continue the discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >> [TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx] >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 27 13:45:16 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:45:16 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Pumpkin In-Reply-To: <37879F7F-1C15-480A-AD13-4F44B2507160@frobbit.se> References: <37879F7F-1C15-480A-AD13-4F44B2507160@frobbit.se> Message-ID: I am afraid pumpkinitis is contagious. I intended to be on the call but fell asleep. Apologies and I hope I didn't miss anything important. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf > Of Patrik Fältström > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:37 PM > To: ICG > Subject: [Internal-cg] Pumpkin > > I at the moment do not remember whether I have said I can > participate or not at this call, but where I am on the planet the time of > the call is, as I now feel, such that I would definitely be asleep if I even > managed to dial the number. > > Because of this, I will not be able to participate on ICG Call #17. > > Best, Patrik From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 27 15:40:01 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Chairs/Secretariat coordination call summary Message-ID: <007f01d09893$662d8ca0$3288a5e0$@icgsec.asia> Hi All, Below is a brief summary of what was discussed on the coordination call just now: 1. Re-number combined proposal * Secretariat to work on this, ETA to be circulated to icg-admin at ianacg.org later today. 2. ETA for translations of the combined proposal * Combined proposal needs to be shared with full ICG for at least one week to make sure everyone is on board * ICG Chairs to draft or discuss on list re language for a preface to the combined proposal * No rush to get translations done prior to ICANN Buenos Aires (so the longer ETA, 7 to 10 days plus a week will prevail - Secretariat to connect with Alice further re this) * Translations can happen in a multi-step process if needed (i.e. the preface can be sent later if we want the combined proposal translated first - Secretariat to connect with Alice further) 3. Public comment review tool (CWG-IANA matrix)/Public comment sheet/Public comment page on ICG web site * Secretariat to use tool as a basis to process and aggregate public comments coming in * Secretariat to find out (if possible) from CWG-IANA re how many people actually used their public comment sheet to submit public comments * ICG Chairs to figure out/further discuss the format/language of the comment sheet, matrix, and public comment page on the ICG web site 4. Action item 2 from the last call ICG Call 16 re call scheduling/doodling for July and Aug * Secretariat to forward email with the dates and coordinate with Patrik re call scheduling and possible f2f meeting in September 5. Decisions taken/Action item list edits for Call 17 * Secretariat to edit as discussed on call (remove AI for public comment sheet, AI 3 and 4 just about timeline graphic) and then circulate to the ICG main list 6. (Skype) Reminder about drafting agenda for ICG f2f meeting and sending information to ICANN before June 1. Please let me know if I have missed anything. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 27 15:46:17 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Chairs/Secretariat coordination call summary Message-ID: <008401d09894$46079c30$d216d490$@icgsec.asia> Apologies to all - the Chairs and the Secretariat just had a coordination call and the summary below was sent to the ICG mailing list by mistake. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:40 AM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Chairs/Secretariat coordination call summary Hi All, Below is a brief summary of what was discussed on the coordination call just now: 1. Re-number combined proposal * Secretariat to work on this, ETA to be circulated to icg-admin at ianacg.org later today. 2. ETA for translations of the combined proposal * Combined proposal needs to be shared with full ICG for at least one week to make sure everyone is on board * ICG Chairs to draft or discuss on list re language for a preface to the combined proposal * No rush to get translations done prior to ICANN Buenos Aires (so the longer ETA, 7 to 10 days plus a week will prevail - Secretariat to connect with Alice further re this) * Translations can happen in a multi-step process if needed (i.e. the preface can be sent later if we want the combined proposal translated first - Secretariat to connect with Alice further) 3. Public comment review tool (CWG-IANA matrix)/Public comment sheet/Public comment page on ICG web site * Secretariat to use tool as a basis to process and aggregate public comments coming in * Secretariat to find out (if possible) from CWG-IANA re how many people actually used their public comment sheet to submit public comments * ICG Chairs to figure out/further discuss the format/language of the comment sheet, matrix, and public comment page on the ICG web site 4. Action item 2 from the last call ICG Call 16 re call scheduling/doodling for July and Aug * Secretariat to forward email with the dates and coordinate with Patrik re call scheduling and possible f2f meeting in September 5. Decisions taken/Action item list edits for Call 17 * Secretariat to edit as discussed on call (remove AI for public comment sheet, AI 3 and 4 just about timeline graphic) and then circulate to the ICG main list 6. (Skype) Reminder about drafting agenda for ICG f2f meeting and sending information to ICANN before June 1. Please let me know if I have missed anything. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 27 15:50:22 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:50:22 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 17: Decisions taken list, Action items list Message-ID: <008901d09894$d841b130$88c51390$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the two lists below: Decisions Taken: 1. ICG to continue discussing the minutes of Call #16 on the internal-cg mailing list and finalize minutes for approval on or prior to the June 10 Call. Action Items: 1. ICG Chairs to send the emails regarding implementation to the three operational communities as soon as possible. 2. ICG Chairs to draft a letter to ICANN focusing on asking about ICANN internal process that might impact the implementation, and discuss the draft with ICG members on the internal-cg mailing list. 3. Cooper to incorporate comments received on ICG Call 17 and formulate text about contingencies to add to timeline graphic. 4. Cooper to update timeline graphic with specific dates once the Names proposal is received by the ICG. Secretariat to then publish the ICG timeline graphic. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Wed May 27 16:20:19 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:20:19 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 17: Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: <008901d09894$d841b130$88c51390$@icgsec.asia> References: <008901d09894$d841b130$88c51390$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Alissa Others It was mentioned at various occasions that in message to NTIA we ask further clarification on the term" implementation" in the mind of NTIA. I was not able to join call 17 due to the connection problem. Pls make sure that the above question is included in the message. I strongly oppose to send any message to ICANN regarding potential impeding elements for the implementation of the transition due to the fact that the issue is still under ongoing discussion , in particular awaiting views from three OCs( in the light of our message to them) . Pls also mote my comments earlier submitted to the list Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone > On 27 May 2015, at 17:50, Jennifer Chung wrote: > > Dear All, > > Please find the two lists below: > > Decisions Taken: > 1. ICG to continue discussing the minutes of Call #16 on the internal-cg mailing list and finalize minutes for approval on or prior to the June 10 Call. > > Action Items: > 1. ICG Chairs to send the emails regarding implementation to the three operational communities as soon as possible. > > 2. ICG Chairs to draft a letter to ICANN focusing on asking about ICANN internal process that might impact the implementation, and discuss the draft with ICG members on the internal-cg mailing list. > > 3. Cooper to incorporate comments received on ICG Call 17 and formulate text about contingencies to add to timeline graphic. > > 4. Cooper to update timeline graphic with specific dates once the Names proposal is received by the ICG. Secretariat to then publish the ICG timeline graphic. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 27 16:21:23 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:21:23 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry References: Message-ID: FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Alissa Cooper > Subject: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry > Date: May 27, 2015 at 9:17:50 AM PDT > To: "Ianaplan at Ietf. Org" > Cc: Marc Blanchet , "Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)" , Mohamed El Bashir , Patrik Fältström > > Dear IANAPLAN WG, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. > > If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 27 16:21:37 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:21:37 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Time frame inquiry References: <0C3D21D2-7139-44C2-9CB1-7A252287E3E9@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <3863F892-27B5-4439-821C-8477D674DA42@cooperw.in> FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Alissa Cooper > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Time frame inquiry > Date: May 27, 2015 at 9:19:34 AM PDT > To: ianaxfer at nro.net > Cc: Mohamed El Bashir , Patrik Fältström > > Dear CRISP team, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. > > If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer at nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 27 16:26:33 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:26:33 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Time frame inquiry (corrected) References: <5B754036-8FF6-4EDB-8EC3-873756F4E664@cooperw.in> Message-ID: FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Alissa Cooper > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Time frame inquiry (corrected) > Date: May 27, 2015 at 9:25:00 AM PDT > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org > Cc: Mohamed El Bashir , Patrik Fältström > > My apologies, the first version of this email that was sent was missing one question. Please find the corrected version below. > > ---- > > Dear CWG, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. > > If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 27 16:28:55 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:28:55 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: ICG call #17 References: Message-ID: <4C731FA1-E17B-4CBB-93C9-F801E2685DAE@cooperw.in> FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Alice Jansen > Subject: ICG call #17 > Date: May 27, 2015 at 6:39:20 AM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper , Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir , Jennifer Chung , Yannis Li > Cc: Josh Baulch > > Dear Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed, > > This is to formally apologize for the technical difficulties we ran into today on the ICG call #17. > Although services were booked, our conference call provider failed to open the bridges and to provide the support we had requested. The ICANN tech-support Team dedicated to the ICG call support was able to open and operate the EN line but unfortunately we were unable to open interpreters' lines. > Rest assured that Josh Baulch and I have reported this and are currently following up with Adigo to receive explanations and to make sure this never happens again. > We wish to apologize for the unfortunate inconvenience this Adigo failure caused and confirm that transcripts into AR, ES, FR, PT, RU and ZH will be delivered in addition to the EN transcript. > Thanks for your understanding. > > Best regards > > Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed May 27 21:46:24 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 17:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Calls: Doodle for July-Oct teleconferences Message-ID: <011b01d098c6$96e98fa0$c4bcaee0$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Please fill out following doodle poll for the July-Oct calls: http://doodle.com/pacmww63ks6848bk - Weds 15 July - Weds 29 July - Weds 12 Aug - Weds 26 Aug - Weds 9 Sept - Weds 23 Sept - Weds 7 Oct The doodle choices are for starting times only, call duration to be determined by the chairs/agenda at a later date. Please also note that this is a large poll - please expand the options to fill out your availability for all 7 calls. Please respond by Weds, 10 June, thank you! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed May 27 22:58:59 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:58:59 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN Message-ID: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> Here is a proposed email to ICANN/Steve Crocker based on our discussion during call #17. Please provide your feedback. --- Dear Steve, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling [1] that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” We understand that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. We have inquired with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. We expect ICANN to provide input within those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that you think we should know in formulating our response to Larry, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu May 28 06:21:03 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:21:03 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN In-Reply-To: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> References: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> Thanks Alissa, see my suggestion in red. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:58 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN Here is a proposed email to ICANN/Steve Crocker based on our discussion during call #17. Please provide your feedback. --- Dear Steve, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling [1] that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” We understand that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. We The ICG hasve inquired with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. We expect ICANN to provide input within those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that you the ICANN board thinks we should know in formulating our response to Larry, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu May 28 06:52:31 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:52:31 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN In-Reply-To: <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> References: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> Message-ID: Urgent Dear Alissa, Dear All As I mentioned before , I am still against sending any message to ICANN at this stage. However, if every one else clearly and explicitly does not oppose to such communication, I have few minor amendments to the message as attached Please kindly consider that small ,almost editorial, amendment before the message is sent Regards Kavouss 2015-05-28 8:21 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben : > Thanks Alissa, > > see my suggestion in red. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > *From:* Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:58 AM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN > > Here is a proposed email to ICANN/Steve Crocker based on our discussion > during call #17. Please provide your feedback. > > --- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling [1] that > included the following text: > > "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the > community provide us with an update on the status of the transition > planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as > to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it > after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer > working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which > will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the > multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In > providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States > Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all > work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as > prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the > ending of the contract.” > > We understand that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. > > We The ICG hasve inquired with the operational communities about how much > time the communities believe they will need to complete proposal > development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the > communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry > of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or > entities) [2][3][4]. We expect ICANN to provide input within those > communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if > there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other > ICANN-specific implementation information that you the ICANN board thinks > we should know in formulating our response to Larry, we would appreciate if > you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC. If you have > further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome > as well. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html > [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html > [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Message to ICANN Rev.ka 28 May 2015.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 25062 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Thu May 28 06:53:20 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:53:20 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN In-Reply-To: <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> References: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> Message-ID: <6C309A33-6004-4DE8-98A3-D34EBF77D990@piuha.net> Alissa, This looks good with Wolf-Ulrich’s edits. 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 joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu May 28 11:24:06 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:24:06 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN In-Reply-To: <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> References: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> Message-ID: <5566FAD6.1040304@oracle.com> A couple of minor points related to this version: I think the use of "Larry" in the last paragraph is too informal use the full name or Mr. Strikling. Also in the last sentence, why should we limit soliciting their thoughts only till June? - why not in the course of the proposal development process?... Other than that fine. Joe On 5/28/2015 2:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > Thanks Alissa, > see my suggestion in red. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > *From:* Alissa Cooper > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:58 AM > *To:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN > Here is a proposed email to ICANN/Steve Crocker based on our > discussion during call #17. Please provide your feedback. > --- > Dear Steve, > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling [1] > that included the following text: > "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that > the community provide us with an update on the status of the > transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the > community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the > transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that > you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your > views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to > discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June > ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in > mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to > evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the > ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition > will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > We understand that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. > We The ICG hasve inquired with the operational communities about how > much time the communities believe they will need to complete proposal > development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that > the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to > the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, > agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. We expect ICANN to provide input > within those communities as appropriate as they formulate their > responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal > ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information > that you the ICANN board thinks we should know in formulating our > response to Larry, we would appreciate if you could share that with us > directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC. If you have further thoughts to > communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html > [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html > [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu May 28 22:52:23 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:52:23 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal Message-ID: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> In preparation for eventually having a single complete proposal to put out for public comment, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the IETF and RIR proposals into a single Word document (attached and on dropbox at ). We’d like to get this off to the translators so they can start working on translating it, but we wanted to share it with the ICG first to make sure folks are okay with the formatting. The content is unchanged from the submission we received from the two communities. As we work toward a complete proposal we will likely need to add a preface, but that has not been written yet. Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: combined-proposal-v0.doc Type: application/msword Size: 324096 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Fri May 29 02:03:44 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 12:03:44 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In-Reply-To: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> References: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <49E1C001-81FD-4FD7-B98E-1C04D1EC4A5C@apnic.net> This is OK by me thanks Alissa. It seems a pretty trivial exercise until it comes to resolving any major conflicts, and adding a “preface” which could be pretty substantial I think. Paul. On 29 May 2015, at 8:52, Alissa Cooper wrote: > In preparation for eventually having a single complete proposal to put > out for public comment, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine > the IETF and RIR proposals into a single Word document (attached and > on dropbox at > ). > We’d like to get this off to the translators so they can start > working on translating it, but we wanted to share it with the ICG > first to make sure folks are okay with the formatting. The content is > unchanged from the submission we received from the two communities. > > As we work toward a complete proposal we will likely need to add a > preface, but that has not been written yet. > > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 29 12:52:35 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:52:35 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In-Reply-To: <49E1C001-81FD-4FD7-B98E-1C04D1EC4A5C@apnic.net> References: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> <49E1C001-81FD-4FD7-B98E-1C04D1EC4A5C@apnic.net> Message-ID: Alissa, When the issue of sending out combined proposal was agreed. We did NOT agree with that due to the fact that such course of action will isolate the proposal from Naming Community from the proposals from two other communities. We need a full debate of advantages and disadvantages of such proposal. Every day a new unilateral or partially agreed by few people will come on the table and put us in a very difficult situation . If there would be any benefit to reduce the overloading the responding community by sending the combined Numbers and Protocol/parameter ,s proposal we need to a) fully agree by consensus or unanimity and b0 describe the conditions under which such action is put for public comments. I understand that we initiated discussions on this approach in Singapore but not fully agreed on it Pls refresh my mind on the status of this action Regards Kavouss 2015-05-29 4:03 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson : > > This is OK by me thanks Alissa. It seems a pretty trivial exercise until > it comes to resolving any major conflicts, and adding a “preface” which > could be pretty substantial I think. > > Paul. > > > > On 29 May 2015, at 8:52, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > In preparation for eventually having a single complete proposal to put >> out for public comment, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the >> IETF and RIR proposals into a single Word document (attached and on dropbox >> at < >> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Evaluation/Incoming%20documents?preview=combined-proposal-v0.doc>). >> We’d like to get this off to the translators so they can start working on >> translating it, but we wanted to share it with the ICG first to make sure >> folks are okay with the formatting. The content is unchanged from the >> submission we received from the two communities. >> >> As we work toward a complete proposal we will likely need to add a >> preface, but that has not been written yet. >> >> Alissa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri May 29 14:06:31 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 07:06:31 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In-Reply-To: References: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> <49E1C001-81FD-4FD7-B98E-1C04D1EC4A5C@apnic.net> Message-ID: Hi Kavouss, We are not sending this out for public comment until we add the names proposal. While we wait for the names proposal, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the two proposals we had so we could work on the formatting and get them translated. This is work that would need to get done eventually so we figured it might as well get done while we await the names proposal. Alissa On May 29, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Alissa, > When the issue of sending out combined proposal was agreed. > We did NOT agree with that due to the fact that such course of action will isolate the proposal from Naming Community from the proposals from two other communities. > We need a full debate of advantages and disadvantages of such proposal. > Every day a new unilateral or partially agreed by few people will come on the table and put us in a very difficult situation . > If there would be any benefit to reduce the overloading the responding community by sending the combined Numbers and Protocol/parameter ,s proposal we need to a) fully agree by consensus or unanimity and b0 describe the conditions under which such action is put for public comments. > I understand that we initiated discussions on this approach in Singapore but not fully agreed on it > Pls refresh my mind on the status of this action > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-05-29 4:03 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson : > > This is OK by me thanks Alissa. It seems a pretty trivial exercise until it comes to resolving any major conflicts, and adding a “preface” which could be pretty substantial I think. > > Paul. > > > > On 29 May 2015, at 8:52, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > In preparation for eventually having a single complete proposal to put out for public comment, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the IETF and RIR proposals into a single Word document (attached and on dropbox at ). We’d like to get this off to the translators so they can start working on translating it, but we wanted to share it with the ICG first to make sure folks are okay with the formatting. The content is unchanged from the submission we received from the two communities. > > As we work toward a complete proposal we will likely need to add a preface, but that has not been written yet. > > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 29 14:10:19 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:10:19 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In-Reply-To: References: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> <49E1C001-81FD-4FD7-B98E-1C04D1EC4A5C@apnic.net> Message-ID: <39fe743711fa4c82943c71fca2f99a6e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Agree, it is more efficient to do it this way. Advance the administrative, non-substantive work like formatting and translation while the names proposal is being finished. We can get something done while waiting for names CWG. --MM From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:07 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal Hi Kavouss, We are not sending this out for public comment until we add the names proposal. While we wait for the names proposal, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the two proposals we had so we could work on the formatting and get them translated. This is work that would need to get done eventually so we figured it might as well get done while we await the names proposal. Alissa On May 29, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > wrote: Alissa, When the issue of sending out combined proposal was agreed. We did NOT agree with that due to the fact that such course of action will isolate the proposal from Naming Community from the proposals from two other communities. We need a full debate of advantages and disadvantages of such proposal. Every day a new unilateral or partially agreed by few people will come on the table and put us in a very difficult situation . If there would be any benefit to reduce the overloading the responding community by sending the combined Numbers and Protocol/parameter ,s proposal we need to a) fully agree by consensus or unanimity and b0 describe the conditions under which such action is put for public comments. I understand that we initiated discussions on this approach in Singapore but not fully agreed on it Pls refresh my mind on the status of this action Regards Kavouss 2015-05-29 4:03 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson >: This is OK by me thanks Alissa. It seems a pretty trivial exercise until it comes to resolving any major conflicts, and adding a "preface" which could be pretty substantial I think. Paul. On 29 May 2015, at 8:52, Alissa Cooper wrote: In preparation for eventually having a single complete proposal to put out for public comment, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the IETF and RIR proposals into a single Word document (attached and on dropbox at ). We'd like to get this off to the translators so they can start working on translating it, but we wanted to share it with the ICG first to make sure folks are okay with the formatting. The content is unchanged from the submission we received from the two communities. As we work toward a complete proposal we will likely need to add a preface, but that has not been written yet. Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri May 29 15:15:57 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:15:57 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In-Reply-To: <39fe743711fa4c82943c71fca2f99a6e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> <49E1C001-81FD-4FD7-B98E-1C04D1EC4A5C@apnic.net> <39fe743711fa4c82943c71fca2f99a6e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2318080C-1A0D-4993-89EF-F74094FDBCBA@gmail.com> Alissa Tks for clarification I agree with the course of actions proposed Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 29 May 2015, at 16:10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Agree, it is more efficient to do it this way. Advance the administrative, non-substantive work like formatting and translation while the names proposal is being finished. We can get something done while waiting for names CWG. > > --MM > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:07 AM > To: Kavouss Arasteh > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal > > Hi Kavouss, > > We are not sending this out for public comment until we add the names proposal. While we wait for the names proposal, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the two proposals we had so we could work on the formatting and get them translated. This is work that would need to get done eventually so we figured it might as well get done while we await the names proposal. > > Alissa > > On May 29, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > > Alissa, > When the issue of sending out combined proposal was agreed. > We did NOT agree with that due to the fact that such course of action will isolate the proposal from Naming Community from the proposals from two other communities. > We need a full debate of advantages and disadvantages of such proposal. > Every day a new unilateral or partially agreed by few people will come on the table and put us in a very difficult situation . > If there would be any benefit to reduce the overloading the responding community by sending the combined Numbers and Protocol/parameter ,s proposal we need to a) fully agree by consensus or unanimity and b0 describe the conditions under which such action is put for public comments. > I understand that we initiated discussions on this approach in Singapore but not fully agreed on it > Pls refresh my mind on the status of this action > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-05-29 4:03 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson : > > This is OK by me thanks Alissa. It seems a pretty trivial exercise until it comes to resolving any major conflicts, and adding a “preface” which could be pretty substantial I think. > > Paul. > > > > On 29 May 2015, at 8:52, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > In preparation for eventually having a single complete proposal to put out for public comment, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the IETF and RIR proposals into a single Word document (attached and on dropbox at ). We’d like to get this off to the translators so they can start working on translating it, but we wanted to share it with the ICG first to make sure folks are okay with the formatting. The content is unchanged from the submission we received from the two communities. > > As we work toward a complete proposal we will likely need to add a preface, but that has not been written yet. > > Alissa > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sat May 30 09:36:09 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 05:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: References: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> <51f5925fa0de42b18f496108b6b7094b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <009901d097cd$e5e340f0$b1a9c2d0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <005501d09abc$10decb30$329c6190$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Attached please find v5 of the minutes of the 19 May call. This version incorporates Paul's edits and is a clean copy for ICG approval. This can also be found on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1LPxXKb Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:37 AM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Jennifer, I made a few small changes to the v4 minutes, which you can see in the markup. Paul. On 27 May 2015, at 2:06, Jennifer Chung wrote: > FYI, Milton's requested edits to the 19 May call minutes below: > > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:14 AM > To: Jennifer Chung > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Jennifer > > Very detailed, clear minutes. Thanks. > > > > A few modifications: > > > > You quote me from the chat as saying "Mueller stated that he '[does > not] think that ICANN is the right entity to ask about > implementation'. > That is a > correct quote but in context, what I meant by "ask about > implementation" was actually "ask about _what is meant by_ > implementation." So please put that in. Obviously we need to ask ICANN > about their timeframe for implementation. > > > > > I am not sure what this statement (it's on the bottom of page 4) > means: > "Cooper asked .whether it is the plan to transition away from the PTI > (Post Transition IANA)?" What does it mean to "transition away from > the PTI?" Did Alissa really say that? > > > > Relatedly, Knoben is quoted as saying "the actual plan needs an > estimated 18 months of further development" - is that right? > > > > --MM > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Jennifer Chung > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May > teleconference > (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: > http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Dear All, > > > > The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached > and > also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-19-may-2015-draft-v5.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41667 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Sat May 30 09:38:51 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 05:38:51 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) Message-ID: <005901d09abc$70bdcb00$52396100$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The minutes of the 27 May teleconference (ICG Call #17) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1Jed3Vx. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-27-may-2015-draft.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 49141 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Sat May 30 19:46:45 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 21:46:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) In-Reply-To: <005901d09abc$70bdcb00$52396100$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <28280494.34.1433015201211.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Jennifer, thank you for the Minutes: no observation from me. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Samedi 30 Mai 2015 11:38:51 Objet: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) Dear All, The minutes of the 27 May teleconference (ICG Call #17) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1Jed3Vx . Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sat May 30 19:49:00 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 21:49:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <005501d09abc$10decb30$329c6190$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <16889352.38.1433015335437.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Jennifer, thank you for v5, which has my agreement. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "Paul Wilson" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Samedi 30 Mai 2015 11:36:09 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, Attached please find v5 of the minutes of the 19 May call. This version incorporates Paul's edits and is a clean copy for ICG approval. This can also be found on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1LPxXKb Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:37 AM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Jennifer, I made a few small changes to the v4 minutes, which you can see in the markup. Paul. On 27 May 2015, at 2:06, Jennifer Chung wrote: > FYI, Milton's requested edits to the 19 May call minutes below: > > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:14 AM > To: Jennifer Chung > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Jennifer > > Very detailed, clear minutes. Thanks. > > > > A few modifications: > > > > You quote me from the chat as saying "Mueller stated that he '[does > not] think that ICANN is the right entity to ask about > implementation'. > That is a > correct quote but in context, what I meant by "ask about > implementation" was actually "ask about _what is meant by_ > implementation." So please put that in. Obviously we need to ask ICANN > about their timeframe for implementation. > > > > > I am not sure what this statement (it's on the bottom of page 4) > means: > "Cooper asked .whether it is the plan to transition away from the PTI > (Post Transition IANA)?" What does it mean to "transition away from > the PTI?" Did Alissa really say that? > > > > Relatedly, Knoben is quoted as saying "the actual plan needs an > estimated 18 months of further development" - is that right? > > > > --MM > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Jennifer Chung > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May > teleconference > (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: > http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Dear All, > > > > The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached > and > also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun May 31 06:42:16 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 06:42:16 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <16889352.38.1433015335437.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <005501d09abc$10decb30$329c6190$@icgsec.asia> <16889352.38.1433015335437.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: I'm fine with this version too .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 9:49 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear Jennifer, thank you for v5, which has my agreement. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: "Paul Wilson" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Samedi 30 Mai 2015 11:36:09 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Dear All, Attached please find v5 of the minutes of the 19 May call. This version incorporates Paul's edits and is a clean copy for ICG approval. This can also be found on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1LPxXKb Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:37 AM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference Jennifer, I made a few small changes to the v4 minutes, which you can see in the markup. Paul. On 27 May 2015, at 2:06, Jennifer Chung wrote: > FYI, Milton's requested edits to the 19 May call minutes below: > > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:14 AM > To: Jennifer Chung > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Jennifer > > Very detailed, clear minutes. Thanks. > > > > A few modifications: > > > > You quote me from the chat as saying "Mueller stated that he '[does > not] think that ICANN is the right entity to ask about > implementation'. > That is a > correct quote but in context, what I meant by "ask about > implementation" was actually "ask about _what is meant by_ > implementation." So please put that in. Obviously we need to ask ICANN > about their timeframe for implementation. > > > > > I am not sure what this statement (it's on the bottom of page 4) > means: > "Cooper asked .whether it is the plan to transition away from the PTI > (Post Transition IANA)?" What does it mean to "transition away from > the PTI?" Did Alissa really say that? > > > > Relatedly, Knoben is quoted as saying "the actual plan needs an > estimated 18 months of further development" - is that right? > > > > --MM > > > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Jennifer Chung > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May > teleconference (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox > here: > http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > > > From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM > To: 'ICG' > Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > > > Dear All, > > > > The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached > and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun May 31 06:42:12 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 06:42:12 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) In-Reply-To: <28280494.34.1433015201211.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <005901d09abc$70bdcb00$52396100$@icgsec.asia> <28280494.34.1433015201211.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: Thanks Jennifer .. Two comments: First on page 4, appreciate replacing this: • Ismail stated that she considered the proposed timeline to be a best case scenario timeline. She suggested that the ICG also create an extended scenario timeline with two public comment periods and factor in additional time for resolving controversial issues with the operational communities. She further suggested to use ICANN Dublin as the ICG’s final face-to-face meeting to fine-tune the consolidated proposal and set the submission deadline for shortly afterwards. By (edits capitalized and attached in track changes): • Ismail stated that she considered the proposed timeline to be a best case scenario timeline. She suggested that the ICG also create an extended scenario timeline with two public comment periods and factor in additional time for resolving controversial issues with the operational communities. She further suggested THAT, IF NECESSARY, ICANN Dublin MAY BE used as the ICG’s final face-to-face On page 5, appreciate adding my chat comment at 01:57 in relation to Lee's comment and Alissa's response .. I had the feeling that we were mixing 2 different things: - "discussion with NTIA on the timeline to make sure it provides the response they are looking for" if I understood Lee's suggestion right, with - "NTIA's review of the consolidated proposal", if I understood the responses from Alissa, Lynn & Narelle right .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 9:47 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) Dear Jennifer, thank you for the Minutes: no observation from me. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Samedi 30 Mai 2015 11:38:51 Objet: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) Dear All, The minutes of the 27 May teleconference (ICG Call #17) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1Jed3Vx . Best Regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-27-may-2015-draft - MI comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 59106 bytes Desc: minutes-teleconference-27-may-2015-draft - MI comments.docx URL: