From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Tue Nov  3 02:35:06 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:35:06 -0500
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>

Hi Manal,

I am absolutely fine staying with the original text, if that is what you/the ICG prefer.  My edits were only trying to recognize that implementation items were being evaluated (during and after the comment periods) and were going to be outlined in Part 0 of the combined proposal (in the hope that that would increase support for/comfort with the Combined Proposal.

Lynn

On Oct 30, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Lynn, Elise, Jennifer, Milton and all ..
> I have accepted all edits suggested by Lynn but have 2 questions on the following points:
> 
> 1. On pages 3 & 6 the sentence that reads 
> "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during implementation", with the suggested edits will read 
> "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during the implementation section" ..
> I thought we meant to say "when the implementation starts, i.e. during the implementation phase .. if not then we should reference the exact section (as on page 6) but also replace "during" with "in" .. Can someone confirm the intended meaning?
> 
> 2. On page 5, Lynn commented on the sentence that reads 
> "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, ", regarding "How do we best note that these paragraph numbers, etc. refer to the draft put out for public comment?" 
> Does this address the point "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the response from the CWG to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this," .. if not, any better suggestions?
> 
> I think, after resolving the above 2 points, the draft will be ready for posting ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] 
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:07 AM
> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; Manal Ismail
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Attached and linked below, please find a formatted version of the summary document.  I have made some edits for consistency (capitalization, citations, etc.) and have added section and sub-section numbering/lettering in the same format as the combined proposal.
> 
> Dropbox short links:
> clean-LSA-format.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1PYeawa
> clean-LSA.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1M4zeQ7 
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:34 PM
> To: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
> 
> Hi Manal, Joe,
> 
> thanks for all the work.  This was not an easy task.  
> 
> Overall, I think it looks good.  I made some edits, just trying to tighten up some text. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lynn
> 
> 
> <Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean  LSA-format-MI.docx>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From narelle.clark at accan.org.au  Tue Nov  3 04:44:44 2015
From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:44:44 +1100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status? RE: DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the
 CCWG Chairs
Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEE34A@ACCAN01.accan.local>

Hi all
What is the status of the message to the CCWG?

As last seen below.

Narelle

> > > = = = = = = = =
> > >
> > > Dear CCWG Chairs,
> > >
> > > During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the
> > > mission
> > statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the
> > CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented.
> > This is especially important since the mission statement is intended
> > to become a fundamental bylaw.  We have no interest in telling ICANN
> > what belongs in the mission statement, and others have already made
> > suggestions.  For example, the IAB offered some text in June 2015 as
> > part of their response to the CCWG public comment; see
> > https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-
> > documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-ccwg-accountability-draft-report/.
> > The ICG believes that the mission statement must accurately reflect
> > the ICANN organizational scope and structure.  In addition, if making
> > the mission statement a fundamental bylaw is not intended to be an
> > impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN, then the mission
> > statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI. The ICG
> > asks the CCWG make the ICANN mission statement current and accurate
> > before it becomes a fundamental bylaw.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your consideration,
> > > ICG Chairs


From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Nov  3 05:06:00 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:06:00 +0900
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status? RE: DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to
	the CCWG Chairs
In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEE34A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEE34A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
Message-ID: <F9228152-DC34-46D9-9049-0F1775D42E16@cooperw.in>

Thanks for the reminder! It’s been a busy week here at the IETF meeting.

I have fixed the typos in the version below and will send after 20:00 UTC today, Nov 3.

—

Dear CCWG,

During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the mission statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented.  This is especially important since the mission statement is intended to become a fundamental bylaw.  We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, and others have already made suggestions. For example, the IAB offered some text in June 2015 as part of their response to the CCWG public comment; see https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-ccwg-accountability-draft-report/.  From the ICG point of view, the mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure with and without the PTI, otherwise it will be an additional significant impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN. The ICG asks the CCWG to make the ICANN mission statement current and accurate before it becomes a fundamental bylaw.

Thanks for your consideration,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG


> On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> What is the status of the message to the CCWG?
> 
> As last seen below.
> 
> Narelle
> 
>>>> = = = = = = = =
>>>> 
>>>> Dear CCWG Chairs,
>>>> 
>>>> During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the
>>>> mission
>>> statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the
>>> CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented.
>>> This is especially important since the mission statement is intended
>>> to become a fundamental bylaw.  We have no interest in telling ICANN
>>> what belongs in the mission statement, and others have already made
>>> suggestions.  For example, the IAB offered some text in June 2015 as
>>> part of their response to the CCWG public comment; see
>>> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-
>>> documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-ccwg-accountability-draft-report/.
>>> The ICG believes that the mission statement must accurately reflect
>>> the ICANN organizational scope and structure.  In addition, if making
>>> the mission statement a fundamental bylaw is not intended to be an
>>> impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN, then the mission
>>> statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI. The ICG
>>> asks the CCWG make the ICANN mission statement current and accurate
>>> before it becomes a fundamental bylaw.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your consideration,
>>>> ICG Chairs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From fmniebel at gmail.com  Tue Nov  3 07:38:58 2015
From: fmniebel at gmail.com (FMNiebel)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:38:58 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status? RE: DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to
	the CCWG Chairs
In-Reply-To: <F9228152-DC34-46D9-9049-0F1775D42E16@cooperw.in>
References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEE34A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<F9228152-DC34-46D9-9049-0F1775D42E16@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <F42E3EC8-9CB9-4096-94E7-5760FAABA6C6@gmail.com>

Just to point out that there has been an intensive discussion about the IAB comments on the mission statement on the CCWG list during the last days.
Michael

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 03.11.2015 um 06:06 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> 
> Thanks for the reminder! It’s been a busy week here at the IETF meeting.
> 
> I have fixed the typos in the version below and will send after 20:00 UTC today, Nov 3.
> 
> —
> 
> Dear CCWG,
> 
> During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the mission statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented.  This is especially important since the mission statement is intended to become a fundamental bylaw.  We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, and others have already made suggestions. For example, the IAB offered some text in June 2015 as part of their response to the CCWG public comment; see https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-ccwg-accountability-draft-report/.  From the ICG point of view, the mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure with and without the PTI, otherwise it will be an additional significant impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN. The ICG asks the CCWG to make the ICANN mission statement current and accurate before it becomes a fundamental bylaw.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> 
> 
>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all
>> What is the status of the message to the CCWG?
>> 
>> As last seen below.
>> 
>> Narelle
>> 
>>>>> = = = = = = = =
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear CCWG Chairs,
>>>>> 
>>>>> During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the
>>>>> mission
>>>> statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the
>>>> CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented.
>>>> This is especially important since the mission statement is intended
>>>> to become a fundamental bylaw.  We have no interest in telling ICANN
>>>> what belongs in the mission statement, and others have already made
>>>> suggestions.  For example, the IAB offered some text in June 2015 as
>>>> part of their response to the CCWG public comment; see
>>>> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-
>>>> documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-ccwg-accountability-draft-report/.
>>>> The ICG believes that the mission statement must accurately reflect
>>>> the ICANN organizational scope and structure.  In addition, if making
>>>> the mission statement a fundamental bylaw is not intended to be an
>>>> impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN, then the mission
>>>> statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI. The ICG
>>>> asks the CCWG make the ICANN mission statement current and accurate
>>>> before it becomes a fundamental bylaw.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for your consideration,
>>>>> ICG Chairs
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Tue Nov  3 07:53:03 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 07:53:03 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Status? RE: DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs
	to	the CCWG Chairs
In-Reply-To: <F42E3EC8-9CB9-4096-94E7-5760FAABA6C6@gmail.com>
References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBCEE34A@ACCAN01.accan.local>
	<F9228152-DC34-46D9-9049-0F1775D42E16@cooperw.in>
	<F42E3EC8-9CB9-4096-94E7-5760FAABA6C6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77ecfba80e624fe191e7d6d525928dcb@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Michael !!
By the way, it was also explained and discussed on the first part of the CCWG conference call, that is ongoing right now ..
Interested colleagues may want to check the call recording ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of FMNiebel
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 9:39 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Status? RE: DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs

Just to point out that there has been an intensive discussion about the IAB comments on the mission statement on the CCWG list during the last days.
Michael

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 03.11.2015 um 06:06 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> 
> Thanks for the reminder! It’s been a busy week here at the IETF meeting.
> 
> I have fixed the typos in the version below and will send after 20:00 UTC today, Nov 3.
> 
> —
> 
> Dear CCWG,
> 
> During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the mission statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented.  This is especially important since the mission statement is intended to become a fundamental bylaw.  We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, and others have already made suggestions. For example, the IAB offered some text in June 2015 as part of their response to the CCWG public comment; see https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-ccwg-accountability-draft-report/.  From the ICG point of view, the mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure with and without the PTI, otherwise it will be an additional significant impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN. The ICG asks the CCWG to make the ICANN mission statement current and accurate before it becomes a fundamental bylaw.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> 
> 
>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all
>> What is the status of the message to the CCWG?
>> 
>> As last seen below.
>> 
>> Narelle
>> 
>>>>> = = = = = = = =
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear CCWG Chairs,
>>>>> 
>>>>> During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the 
>>>>> mission
>>>> statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the 
>>>> CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented.
>>>> This is especially important since the mission statement is 
>>>> intended to become a fundamental bylaw.  We have no interest in 
>>>> telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, and others 
>>>> have already made suggestions.  For example, the IAB offered some 
>>>> text in June 2015 as part of their response to the CCWG public 
>>>> comment; see
>>>> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-
>>>> documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-ccwg-accountability-draft-report/.
>>>> The ICG believes that the mission statement must accurately reflect 
>>>> the ICANN organizational scope and structure.  In addition, if 
>>>> making the mission statement a fundamental bylaw is not intended to 
>>>> be an impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN, then the 
>>>> mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without 
>>>> PTI. The ICG asks the CCWG make the ICANN mission statement current 
>>>> and accurate before it becomes a fundamental bylaw.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for your consideration,
>>>>> ICG Chairs
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Nov  3 15:44:32 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:44:32 -0500
Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: Vol.11: Update on IANA stewardship
	discussions
Message-ID: <00c101d1164e$89719ec0$9c54dc40$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

Please find the latest blog update Vol.11 linked below:

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc
ussions 

Best Regards,

Jennifer



From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Nov  3 15:56:14 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:56:14 -0500
Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: Vol.11: Update on IANA stewardship
	discussions
Message-ID: <00c401d11650$2c0820e0$841862a0$@icgsec.asia>

If the URL is broken below, please use this short link to read the full blog
update: http://icgsec.asia/1XMjgxO 

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Jennifer Chung
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 10:45 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Of interest: Vol.11: Update on IANA stewardship
discussions

Dear All,

Please find the latest blog update Vol.11 linked below:

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc
ussions  

Best Regards,

Jennifer


_______________________________________________
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 Nov  3 17:55:32 2015
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:55:32 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on IANA
	StewardshipDiscussions
In-Reply-To: <CA+aOHUQrYXMuqB8EonnKgRkJPM4fPQ1PXfnkDLq3HQZa5+tsGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D25D7EA4.EE57%hillary.jett@icann.org><D25DAD9D.2364A%grace.abuhamad@icann.org><D25DB0C2.2364E%grace.abuhamad@icann.org><6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4971A70E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com><6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4971A883@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com><5638CFB5.3020209@gih.com>
	<CA+aOHUQrYXMuqB8EonnKgRkJPM4fPQ1PXfnkDLq3HQZa5+tsGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2728708935E147FF93494251F62B1E6A@WUKPC>

Just to be clear: the ICG did not “give up responsibility” in this respect. We had a lengthy debate on 1. whether the ICG should have a role during the implementation phase and 2. in case how this role could be characterised. There was unanimous consensus that the implementation of the 3 proposals which the ICG combined to a single one should lie in hands of the operational communities. The ICG understands that the OCs will determine the implementation processindetail. If it turns out from these discussions that ICG involvement is needed (as oversight or any other form of participation) the ICG would be open to those requirements.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Greg Shatan 
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:48 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on IANA StewardshipDiscussions

That is my understanding as well.

Greg

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

  Hello all,

  my immediate reaction is that if the ICG has given up the responsibility of the oversight role in the implementations, this prompts each operational community to perform this oversight and this translates to CWG Stewardship having oversight of the implementation of our recommendations.
  Kindest regards,

  Olivier 



  On 03/11/2015 14:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

    In looking at what I think is the latest version of the Action Item Inventory, it looks like the ICG no longer is listed as the responsible party for implementation of any of the Names action items but I do note that in the oversight responsibility is shown as TBD for all of the Names action items.  At what point do we need to decide who has the oversight responsibility?



    Chuck



    From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
    Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:26 AM
    To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
    Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions



    Thanks Grace.  Based on the ICG decisions in Dublin, it appears that they will not be performing an oversight role of the implementation of the CWG Stewardship recommendations.  I think that means that we may need to update our implementation action item spreadsheet to remove the ICG as one of the responsible parties for certain action items.  I also think that the CWG may then be the responsible party in places where we listed the ICG.



    Chuck



    From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
    Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:31 AM
    To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
    Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions



    Original link:https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions



    Volume 11: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
    Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition is now a step closer
    The ICG and CCWG-Accountability met in Dublin during ICANN54 to continue work on their proposals in wake of the feedback received during the two public comment periods that ended in September. The ICG was successful in completing its Consolidated IANA Stewardship Proposal and is now awaiting the finalization of the CCWG-Accountability’s Work Stream 1 Recommendations. When CCWG-Accountability finalizes its Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the CWG-Stewardship confirms that the recommendations meet its requirements, the ICGcan consider its proposal complete and begin the process of submitting it to the NTIA.

    Consolidated IANA Stewardship Proposal
    Taking into account an analysis of the public comments received during the public comment period that ended on 8 September 2015, and after a number of working sessions duringICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has announcedthat it has finalized its proposal. However, before the ICG sends the proposal to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) via the ICANN Board, it will first confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by Work Stream 1 recommendations currently being finalized by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability).TheICG has decided to keep its mailing lists active until 30 September 2016 to enable the community to continue to contact them, if needed. It is also seeking feedback from the threeIANA operational communities (names, numbers and protocol parameters) to see if they would like ICG to play a role during the implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition. The ICGwill not hold any more face-to-face meetings and will only hold conference calls on an as-needed basis.

    There are still some implementation details to be finalized for the transition, including the issue of the IANA trademark and intellectual property rights (IPR). The CWG-Stewardship will work with the two other operational communities to find a solution to the IPR issue that meets the needs of all three communities.

    CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations
    Following the 12 September end of the public comment period for the 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations, the CCWG-Accountability held a face-to-face meeting, 25-26 September, in Los Angeles, and a number of working sessions in Dublin during ICANN54. As a result of its work to incorporate the feedback from the community, including feedback from the ICANN Board, the CCWG-Accountability made a number of adjustments and refinements to its draft recommendations. As a result of the adjustments, the CCWG-Accountability has decided to send the revised recommendations for a third public comment period.

    The third comment period will have a two-stage approach so the community can begin reviewing the materials as soon as possible. This is to enable the report on Work Stream 1 recommendations to be finalized and sent to the ICANN Board by mid January 2016, ensuring there are minimal effects on the timeline of the IANA Stewardship Transition.

    Key dates
          15 Nov 2015
         A high-level overview of Work Stream 1 Recommendations and a summary of changes from the 2nd Draft Proposal to be:

          1.      Released for a 35-day public comment period

          2.      Sent to the CCWG-Accountability’s Chartering Organizations for their feedback
         
          30 Nov 2015
         Full third draft report on Work Stream 1 Recommendations released for 20 days of consultation
         
          Early Jan 2016
         Amended report submitted to Chartering Organizations
         
          Mid Jan 2016
         Potential face-to-face meeting for Chartering Organizations, if needed, to decide whether to support the report
         
          Mid Jan 2016
         CCWG-Accountability to submit final report to the ICANN Board, enabling theICG to also submit its final report
         

    For more information on the amendments that the CCWG-Accountability decided to pursue in Dublin, see the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ICANN54 co-Chairs' Statement.

    IANA Stewardship Transition in the news
          27 Oct 2015
         Governments v. ICANN: The Last Battle Before the IANA Transition, Council on Foreign Relations [EN]
         
          23 Oct 2015
         ICANN and IANA: Making the right – not a rash – decision, American Enterprise Institute [EN]
         
          13 Oct 2015
         Perché 40 mila ore di lavoro non sono bastate a trovare un accordo sul futuro di Internet senza la guida USA, CheFuturo! [IT]
         
          29 Sep 2015
         IANA-Aufgabe durch USA weiter unter Zeitdruck: Auf Messers Schneide, Heise [DE]
         

    You can play a role in IANA’s future…
    Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANNaccountability. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff at icann.org.

    Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 2 November 2015






     

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship



  _______________________________________________
  CWG-Stewardship mailing list
  CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151103/90dfe181/attachment.html>

From milton at gatech.edu  Tue Nov  3 20:02:46 2015
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 20:02:46 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on
	IANA	StewardshipDiscussions
In-Reply-To: <2728708935E147FF93494251F62B1E6A@WUKPC>
References: <D25D7EA4.EE57%hillary.jett@icann.org><D25DAD9D.2364A%grace.abuhamad@icann.org><D25DB0C2.2364E%grace.abuhamad@icann.org><6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4971A70E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com><6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4971A883@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com><5638CFB5.3020209@gih.com>
	<CA+aOHUQrYXMuqB8EonnKgRkJPM4fPQ1PXfnkDLq3HQZa5+tsGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2728708935E147FF93494251F62B1E6A@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <BN1PR07MB2323F5F6118DB96C7DF9DC9A12B0@BN1PR07MB232.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Wolf’s statement corresponds to my understanding, also.

The ICG will remain in existence at least until September, 2016. During that time it will continue to fulfill its information clearinghouse role as outlined in its charter. If, during the implementation phase, there are people who feel that any one of the operational communities is straying from the correct path, it will be possible for them to notify the ICG and for the ICG to respond by publicizing these concerns, by sending questions to the specific OC, to the broader community, or to the NTIA. ICG will also be available to provide a forum where the various parties can, through their representatives on the ICG, engage in dialogue about these problems. This is what ICG has done all along.

In short, the OCs are fully responsible for implementation and the ICG does not have hard “oversight” authority in the sense that it can tell anyone what to do, but it can and will continue to serve as a public, central clearinghouse where information about the implementation and other developments related to the transition can be shared and actions coordinated as necessary.

--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 12:56 PM
To: Greg Shatan; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on IANA StewardshipDiscussions

Just to be clear: the ICG did not “give up responsibility” in this respect. We had a lengthy debate on 1. whether the ICG should have a role during the implementation phase and 2. in case how this role could be characterised. There was unanimous consensus that the implementation of the 3 proposals which the ICG combined to a single one should lie in hands of the operational communities. The ICG understands that the OCs will determine the implementation processindetail. If it turns out from these discussions that ICG involvement is needed (as oversight or any other form of participation) the ICG would be open to those requirements.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:48 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<mailto:ocl at gih.com>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on IANA StewardshipDiscussions

That is my understanding as well.

Greg

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
Hello all,

my immediate reaction is that if the ICG has given up the responsibility of the oversight role in the implementations, this prompts each operational community to perform this oversight and this translates to CWG Stewardship having oversight of the implementation of our recommendations.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 03/11/2015 14:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
In looking at what I think is the latest version of the Action Item Inventory, it looks like the ICG no longer is listed as the responsible party for implementation of any of the Names action items but I do note that in the oversight responsibility is shown as TBD for all of the Names action items.  At what point do we need to decide who has the oversight responsibility?

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:26 AM
To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions

Thanks Grace.  Based on the ICG decisions in Dublin, it appears that they will not be performing an oversight role of the implementation of the CWG Stewardship recommendations.  I think that means that we may need to update our implementation action item spreadsheet to remove the ICG as one of the responsible parties for certain action items.  I also think that the CWG may then be the responsible party in places where we listed the ICG.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:31 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Volume 11: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions

Original link:https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions

Volume 11: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition is now a step closer

The ICG and CCWG-Accountability met in Dublin during ICANN54<https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54> to continue work on their proposals in wake of the feedback received during the two public comment periods that ended in September. The ICG was successful in completing its Consolidated IANA Stewardship Proposal and is now awaiting the finalization of the CCWG-Accountability’s Work Stream 1 Recommendations. When CCWG-Accountability finalizes its Work Stream 1 recommendations, and the CWG-Stewardship confirms that the recommendations meet its requirements, the ICGcan consider its proposal complete and begin the process of submitting it to the NTIA.

Consolidated IANA Stewardship Proposal

Taking into account an analysis of the public comments<https://www.dropbox.com/s/j07zo4malyc2sx6/Public%20Comment%20Summary%20-%2023Oct15-f2f%20edits-clean.docx?dl=0> received during the public comment period<https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/> that ended on 8 September 2015, and after a number of working sessions<https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule-table?combine=ICG> duringICANN54<https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54> in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG<http://www.ianacg.org/>) has announced<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-completes-its-work-and-awaits-conclusion-of-ccwg-on-enhancing-icann-accountability/>that it has finalized its proposal<http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf>. However, before the ICG sends the proposal to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/>) via the ICANN Board, it will first confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions>) that its accountability requirements have been met by Work Stream 1 recommendations currently being finalized by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability>).TheICG has decided to keep its mailing lists active until 30 September 2016 to enable the community to continue to contact them, if needed. It is also seeking feedback from the threeIANA operational communities (names, numbers and protocol parameters) to see if they would like ICG to play a role during the implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition. The ICGwill not hold any more face-to-face meetings and will only hold conference calls on an as-needed basis.

There are still some implementation details to be finalized for the transition, including the issue of the IANA trademark and intellectual property rights (IPR). The CWG-Stewardship will work with the two other operational communities to find a solution to the IPR issue that meets the needs of all three communities.

CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Following the 12 September end of the public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> for the 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stream-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf>, the CCWG-Accountability held a face-to-face meeting<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>, 25-26 September, in Los Angeles, and a number of working sessions<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56134263> in Dublin during ICANN54. As a result of its work to incorporate the feedback from the community, including feedback from the ICANN Board, the CCWG-Accountability made a number of adjustments and refinements to its draft recommendations. As a result of the adjustments, the CCWG-Accountability has decided to send the revised recommendations for a third public comment period.

The third comment period will have a two-stage approach so the community can begin reviewing the materials as soon as possible. This is to enable the report on Work Stream 1 recommendations to be finalized and sent to the ICANN Board by mid January 2016, ensuring there are minimal effects on the timeline of the IANA Stewardship Transition.

Key dates

15 Nov 2015


A high-level overview of Work Stream 1 Recommendations and a summary of changes from the 2nd Draft Proposal to be:
1.      Released for a 35-day public comment period
2.      Sent to the CCWG-Accountability’s Chartering Organizations for their feedback


30 Nov 2015


Full third draft report on Work Stream 1 Recommendations released for 20 days of consultation


Early Jan 2016


Amended report submitted to Chartering Organizations


Mid Jan 2016


Potential face-to-face meeting for Chartering Organizations, if needed, to decide whether to support the report


Mid Jan 2016


CCWG-Accountability to submit final report to the ICANN Board, enabling theICG to also submit its final report


For more information on the amendments that the CCWG-Accountability decided to pursue in Dublin, see the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ICANN54 co-Chairs' Statement<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/Cross%20Community%20Working%20Group%20on%20Enhancing%20ICANN%20Accountability%20ICANN54%20co-Chairs%27%20Statement>.

IANA Stewardship Transition in the news

27 Oct 2015


Governments v. ICANN: The Last Battle Before the IANA Transition<http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-before-the-iana-transition/>, Council on Foreign Relations [EN]


23 Oct 2015


ICANN and IANA: Making the right – not a rash – decision<https://www.aei.org/publication/icann-and-iana-making-the-right-not-a-rash-decision/>, American Enterprise Institute [EN]


13 Oct 2015


Perché 40 mila ore di lavoro non sono bastate a trovare un accordo sul futuro di Internet senza la guida USA<http://www.chefuturo.it/2015/10/accordo-futuro-internet-usa/>, CheFuturo! [IT]


29 Sep 2015


IANA-Aufgabe durch USA weiter unter Zeitdruck: Auf Messers Schneide<http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/IANA-Aufgabe-durch-USA-weiter-unter-Zeitdruck-Auf-Messers-Schneide-2832298.html>, Heise [DE]


You can play a role in IANA’s future…

Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANNaccountability. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff at icann.org<mailto:accountability-staff at icann.org>.

Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 2 November 2015





_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

________________________________
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151103/1305ac69/attachment.html>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Nov  5 06:47:01 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 06:47:01 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Thanks Lynn for your flexibility ..
As we're late in posting this summary and having heard no other comments, I suggest we proceed with posting the report, as attached, online, i.e. with the following modifications:

- On pages 3 & 6 the sentence now reads "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated in the implementation section in Part 0 of the combined proposal"
- On page 5, the sentence now reads "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the CWG response to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this,"

Hope this is ok ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:35 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..

Hi Manal,

I am absolutely fine staying with the original text, if that is what you/the ICG prefer.  My edits were only trying to recognize that implementation items were being evaluated (during and after the comment periods) and were going to be outlined in Part 0 of the combined proposal (in the hope that that would increase support for/comfort with the Combined Proposal.

Lynn

On Oct 30, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Lynn, Elise, Jennifer, Milton and all ..
> I have accepted all edits suggested by Lynn but have 2 questions on the following points:
> 
> 1. On pages 3 & 6 the sentence that reads "The work to be done to 
> establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further 
> elaborated during implementation", with the suggested edits will read "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during the implementation section" ..
> I thought we meant to say "when the implementation starts, i.e. during the implementation phase .. if not then we should reference the exact section (as on page 6) but also replace "during" with "in" .. Can someone confirm the intended meaning?
> 
> 2. On page 5, Lynn commented on the sentence that reads "The ICANN 
> Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, ", regarding "How do we best note that these paragraph numbers, etc. refer to the draft put out for public comment?"
> Does this address the point "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the response from the CWG to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this," .. if not, any better suggestions?
> 
> I think, after resolving the above 2 points, the draft will be ready for posting ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:07 AM
> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; Manal Ismail
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Attached and linked below, please find a formatted version of the summary document.  I have made some edits for consistency (capitalization, citations, etc.) and have added section and sub-section numbering/lettering in the same format as the combined proposal.
> 
> Dropbox short links:
> clean-LSA-format.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1PYeawa
> clean-LSA.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1M4zeQ7
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:34 PM
> To: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .
> 
> Hi Manal, Joe,
> 
> thanks for all the work.  This was not an easy task.  
> 
> Overall, I think it looks good.  I made some edits, just trying to tighten up some text. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lynn
> 
> 
> <Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean  
> LSA-format-MI.docx>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean LSA-format-MI.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 129003 bytes
Desc: Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean LSA-format-MI.DOCX
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151105/35db4cbe/attachment.docx>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Nov  5 08:16:42 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:16:42 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
	<90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <cb9d814585444984ac4f524ce8a24a12@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Dear All ..
I have tried to reach Alissa to confirm the first point below and she clarified that the intention was to reference the implementation phase, which also matches my initial understanding ..
Apologies for the inconvenience, the sentences on pages 3&6 will now read:
"The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during implementation"
I'm re-attaching and have also saved this version and a clean copy on Dropbox ..

Kind Regards
--Manal


-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 8:47 AM
To: Lynn St.Amour
Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..

Thanks Lynn for your flexibility ..
As we're late in posting this summary and having heard no other comments, I suggest we proceed with posting the report, as attached, online, i.e. with the following modifications:

- On pages 3 & 6 the sentence now reads "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated in the implementation section in Part 0 of the combined proposal"
- On page 5, the sentence now reads "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the CWG response to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this,"

Hope this is ok ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:35 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..

Hi Manal,

I am absolutely fine staying with the original text, if that is what you/the ICG prefer.  My edits were only trying to recognize that implementation items were being evaluated (during and after the comment periods) and were going to be outlined in Part 0 of the combined proposal (in the hope that that would increase support for/comfort with the Combined Proposal.

Lynn

On Oct 30, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Lynn, Elise, Jennifer, Milton and all ..
> I have accepted all edits suggested by Lynn but have 2 questions on the following points:
> 
> 1. On pages 3 & 6 the sentence that reads "The work to be done to 
> establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further 
> elaborated during implementation", with the suggested edits will read "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during the implementation section" ..
> I thought we meant to say "when the implementation starts, i.e. during the implementation phase .. if not then we should reference the exact section (as on page 6) but also replace "during" with "in" .. Can someone confirm the intended meaning?
> 
> 2. On page 5, Lynn commented on the sentence that reads "The ICANN 
> Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, ", regarding "How do we best note that these paragraph numbers, etc. refer to the draft put out for public comment?"
> Does this address the point "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the response from the CWG to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this," .. if not, any better suggestions?
> 
> I think, after resolving the above 2 points, the draft will be ready for posting ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:07 AM
> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; Manal Ismail
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Attached and linked below, please find a formatted version of the summary document.  I have made some edits for consistency (capitalization, citations, etc.) and have added section and sub-section numbering/lettering in the same format as the combined proposal.
> 
> Dropbox short links:
> clean-LSA-format.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1PYeawa
> clean-LSA.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1M4zeQ7
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:34 PM
> To: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .
> 
> Hi Manal, Joe,
> 
> thanks for all the work.  This was not an easy task.  
> 
> Overall, I think it looks good.  I made some edits, just trying to tighten up some text. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lynn
> 
> 
> <Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean 
> LSA-format-MI.docx>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Public Comment Summary - 05Nov15-f2f edits.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 129012 bytes
Desc: Public Comment Summary - 05Nov15-f2f edits.docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151105/3bfa04eb/attachment.docx>

From paf at frobbit.se  Tue Nov 10 19:56:29 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:56:29 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <cb9d814585444984ac4f524ce8a24a12@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
	<90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<cb9d814585444984ac4f524ce8a24a12@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <4294A3D1-F6D4-4FC2-9EEE-4A396C1264A3@frobbit.se>

Manal,

With help of Jennifer, I have looked at the changes made to the proposal, to see whether all changes are explained in this document.

Jennifer created the following list of changes made, where listed are the paras (in parentheses) and sections (n.b. -,--,--- indicate the levels of subheadings), with substantial changes below.

Out of these I miss text about

- "II History of IANA (02-06)"

For this, I suggest adding in section X a note that "ICG made a decision to add a section on history of IANA to explain why certain roles and functions where managed by IANA today."

- "--4. Meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services (98)"

I suggest adding some text stating "ICG added some clarifying text related to the IFO, as discussed in this summary document in the section on PTI".

- "--PTI Board(1113)"

I see explicit reference to two of the changes in the Names proposal, section 1027 and 1036, but not to 1113. I Presume there should be explicit text about this change as well?


I also see the following text exists:

> Further, the ICG is working to explain the PTI as a whole, and likely to add an additional section on this in Part 0.

A more correct text could be:

> Further, the ICG has added an additional section to explain the PTI as a whole to Part 0.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (x005, x009)
-Proposal Summary is now a new subheading under Executive Summary (x006-010)
-Completeness and Clarity (x014)
-Compatibility and Interoperability (x015-016)
-Accountability (x018)
-NTIA Criteria
--1. Broad Community Support (x022)
--3. Maintain ) (x031-032)

PART 0
II History of IANA (02-06)
III Process Summary (12)
IV Proposal Summary
-A Operational Community Proposals (16)
-B Post-Transition IANA (23-27)
V Summary of Public Comments (28-31 incl. Fig. 3 and 4)
VI ICG Assessment
-A Community Processes: Openness, Inclusiveness, and Consensus (34-35)
-B. Completeness and Clarity (51-52)
-C. Combined Proposal Assessment
--1. Compatibility and Interoperability (54-62)
--2. Accountability (65-68)
--3. Workability (72-75)
-D. NTIA criteria (78-79)
--1. Broad Community Support (80-83)
--3. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS (93, 95-97)
--4. Meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services (98)
--6. Does not replace NTIA role with a government or inter-governmental organization (105-106)
VII Implementation Items to be Completed (107-111)
VII ICG Recommendation (112-113)

PART 1: NAMES
P1.II Existing Pre-Transition Arrangements
-P1.II.A.i. Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs )
-- How disputes about policy are resolved (ccTLDs) (1036)
P1.IIIProposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability
-P1.III.A.i. Proposed Post-Transition Structure
--PTI Board(1113)


On 5 Nov 2015, at 9:16, Manal Ismail wrote:

> Dear All ..
> I have tried to reach Alissa to confirm the first point below and she clarified that the intention was to reference the implementation phase, which also matches my initial understanding ..
> Apologies for the inconvenience, the sentences on pages 3&6 will now read:
> "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during implementation"
> I'm re-attaching and have also saved this version and a clean copy on Dropbox ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 8:47 AM
> To: Lynn St.Amour
> Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
>
> Thanks Lynn for your flexibility ..
> As we're late in posting this summary and having heard no other comments, I suggest we proceed with posting the report, as attached, online, i.e. with the following modifications:
>
> - On pages 3 & 6 the sentence now reads "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated in the implementation section in Part 0 of the combined proposal"
> - On page 5, the sentence now reads "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the CWG response to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this,"
>
> Hope this is ok ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:35 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
>
> Hi Manal,
>
> I am absolutely fine staying with the original text, if that is what you/the ICG prefer.  My edits were only trying to recognize that implementation items were being evaluated (during and after the comment periods) and were going to be outlined in Part 0 of the combined proposal (in the hope that that would increase support for/comfort with the Combined Proposal.
>
> Lynn
>
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Lynn, Elise, Jennifer, Milton and all ..
>> I have accepted all edits suggested by Lynn but have 2 questions on the following points:
>>
>> 1. On pages 3 & 6 the sentence that reads "The work to be done to
>> establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further
>> elaborated during implementation", with the suggested edits will read "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during the implementation section" ..
>> I thought we meant to say "when the implementation starts, i.e. during the implementation phase .. if not then we should reference the exact section (as on page 6) but also replace "during" with "in" .. Can someone confirm the intended meaning?
>>
>> 2. On page 5, Lynn commented on the sentence that reads "The ICANN
>> Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, ", regarding "How do we best note that these paragraph numbers, etc. refer to the draft put out for public comment?"
>> Does this address the point "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the response from the CWG to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this," .. if not, any better suggestions?
>>
>> I think, after resolving the above 2 points, the draft will be ready for posting ..
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
>> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:07 AM
>> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; Manal Ismail
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Attached and linked below, please find a formatted version of the summary document.  I have made some edits for consistency (capitalization, citations, etc.) and have added section and sub-section numbering/lettering in the same format as the combined proposal.
>>
>> Dropbox short links:
>> clean-LSA-format.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1PYeawa
>> clean-LSA.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1M4zeQ7
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Lynn St.Amour
>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:34 PM
>> To: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .
>>
>> Hi Manal, Joe,
>>
>> thanks for all the work.  This was not an easy task.
>>
>> Overall, I think it looks good.  I made some edits, just trying to tighten up some text.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>> <Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean
>> LSA-format-MI.docx>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151110/322c701c/attachment.sig>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Thu Nov 12 13:48:45 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:48:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <4294A3D1-F6D4-4FC2-9EEE-4A396C1264A3@frobbit.se>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
	<90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<cb9d814585444984ac4f524ce8a24a12@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<4294A3D1-F6D4-4FC2-9EEE-4A396C1264A3@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <ae5be4a09bb242fa8c0b5f25a862a889@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Patrik and Jennifer ..
I've tried my best to incorporate the edits suggested below, but I'm afraid I did not understand all suggestions ..
Please check the attached (also available on Dropbox), and comments inline below ..
If the secretariat is already clear about the remaining edits, please feel free to proceed with them for the sake of time ..
Kind Regards
--Manal  

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:56 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Lynn St.Amour; IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..

Manal,

With help of Jennifer, I have looked at the changes made to the proposal, to see whether all changes are explained in this document.

Jennifer created the following list of changes made, where listed are the paras (in parentheses) and sections (n.b. -,--,--- indicate the levels of subheadings), with substantial changes below.

Out of these I miss text about

- "II History of IANA (02-06)"

For this, I suggest adding in section X a note that "ICG made a decision to add a section on history of IANA to explain why certain roles and functions where managed by IANA today."

	[MI]: done as attached, marked in track changes ..

- "--4. Meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services (98)"

I suggest adding some text stating "ICG added some clarifying text related to the IFO, as discussed in this summary document in the section on PTI".

	[MI]: I have added this under VII.D. ,  as attached, marked in track changes .. Is this what's meant? Is this the right place?

- "--PTI Board(1113)"

I see explicit reference to two of the changes in the Names proposal, section 1027 and 1036, but not to 1113. I Presume there should be explicit text about this change as well?

	[MI]: I've added a bullet point 4), under section V on ccTLD Issues, that reads "The ICG have also received comments seeking clarification on how the PTI board will be held accountable if it does not fulfill its oversight responsibilities.  The ICG has added some text to paragraph 1113, of CWG response to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, to further elaborate on this" .. Is this ok?

I also see the following text exists:

> Further, the ICG is working to explain the PTI as a whole, and likely to add an additional section on this in Part 0.

A more correct text could be:

> Further, the ICG has added an additional section to explain the PTI as a whole to Part 0.

	[MI]: done as attached, marked in track changes ..

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (x005, x009)
-Proposal Summary is now a new subheading under Executive Summary (x006-010) -Completeness and Clarity (x014) -Compatibility and Interoperability (x015-016) -Accountability (x018) -NTIA Criteria --1. Broad Community Support (x022) --3. Maintain ) (x031-032)

	[MI]: I'm not clear about the exact suggestion here .. Can you or Jennifer kindly do the necessary edit or let me know what the exact edits are?

PART 0
II History of IANA (02-06)
III Process Summary (12)
IV Proposal Summary
-A Operational Community Proposals (16)
-B Post-Transition IANA (23-27)
V Summary of Public Comments (28-31 incl. Fig. 3 and 4) VI ICG Assessment -A Community Processes: Openness, Inclusiveness, and Consensus (34-35) -B. Completeness and Clarity (51-52) -C. Combined Proposal Assessment --1. Compatibility and Interoperability (54-62) --2. Accountability (65-68) --3. Workability (72-75) -D. NTIA criteria (78-79) --1. Broad Community Support (80-83) --3. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS (93, 95-97) --4. Meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services (98) --6. Does not replace NTIA role with a government or inter-governmental organization (105-106) VII Implementation Items to be Completed (107-111) VII ICG Recommendation (112-113)

	[MI]: I'm again not clear what's being requested here .. Can you or Jennifer kindly do the necessary edit or let me know what the exact edits are?

PART 1: NAMES
P1.II Existing Pre-Transition Arrangements -P1.II.A.i. Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs )
-- How disputes about policy are resolved (ccTLDs) (1036) P1.IIIProposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability -P1.III.A.i. Proposed Post-Transition Structure --PTI Board(1113)

	[MI]: I'm sorry but again not clear what's being requested here .. Can you or Jennifer kindly do the necessary edit or let me know what the exact edits are?

On 5 Nov 2015, at 9:16, Manal Ismail wrote:

> Dear All ..
> I have tried to reach Alissa to confirm the first point below and she clarified that the intention was to reference the implementation phase, which also matches my initial understanding ..
> Apologies for the inconvenience, the sentences on pages 3&6 will now read:
> "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during implementation"
> I'm re-attaching and have also saved this version and a clean copy on Dropbox ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Manal Ismail Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 8:47 AM
> To: Lynn St.Amour
> Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
>
> Thanks Lynn for your flexibility ..
> As we're late in posting this summary and having heard no other comments, I suggest we proceed with posting the report, as attached, online, i.e. with the following modifications:
>
> - On pages 3 & 6 the sentence now reads "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated in the implementation section in Part 0 of the combined proposal"
> - On page 5, the sentence now reads "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the CWG response to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this,"
>
> Hope this is ok ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:35 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
>
> Hi Manal,
>
> I am absolutely fine staying with the original text, if that is what you/the ICG prefer.  My edits were only trying to recognize that implementation items were being evaluated (during and after the comment periods) and were going to be outlined in Part 0 of the combined proposal (in the hope that that would increase support for/comfort with the Combined Proposal.
>
> Lynn
>
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Lynn, Elise, Jennifer, Milton and all ..
>> I have accepted all edits suggested by Lynn but have 2 questions on the following points:
>>
>> 1. On pages 3 & 6 the sentence that reads "The work to be done to 
>> establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further 
>> elaborated during implementation", with the suggested edits will read "The work to be done to establish the PTI (and associated structures) will be further elaborated during the implementation section" ..
>> I thought we meant to say "when the implementation starts, i.e. during the implementation phase .. if not then we should reference the exact section (as on page 6) but also replace "during" with "in" .. Can someone confirm the intended meaning?
>>
>> 2. On page 5, Lynn commented on the sentence that reads "The ICANN 
>> Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, ", regarding "How do we best note that these paragraph numbers, etc. refer to the draft put out for public comment?"
>> Does this address the point "The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027, of the response from the CWG to the ICG RFP that was posted for public comment, could usefully be amended to reflect this," .. if not, any better suggestions?
>>
>> I think, after resolving the above 2 points, the draft will be ready for posting ..
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
>> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:07 AM
>> To: 'Lynn St.Amour'; Manal Ismail
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Attached and linked below, please find a formatted version of the summary document.  I have made some edits for consistency (capitalization, citations, etc.) and have added section and sub-section numbering/lettering in the same format as the combined proposal.
>>
>> Dropbox short links:
>> clean-LSA-format.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1PYeawa
>> clean-LSA.docx: http://icgsec.asia/1M4zeQ7
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Lynn St.Amour
>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:34 PM
>> To: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits .
>>
>> Hi Manal, Joe,
>>
>> thanks for all the work.  This was not an easy task.
>>
>> Overall, I think it looks good.  I made some edits, just trying to tighten up some text.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>> <Public Comment Summary - 23Oct15-f2f edits-clean 
>> LSA-format-MI.docx>_______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Public Comment Summary -12Nov15-edits to match proposal.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 129824 bytes
Desc: Public Comment Summary -12Nov15-edits to match proposal.docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151112/e8b9a3cd/attachment.docx>

From paf at frobbit.se  Thu Nov 12 15:06:30 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:06:30 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <ae5be4a09bb242fa8c0b5f25a862a889@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
	<90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<cb9d814585444984ac4f524ce8a24a12@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<4294A3D1-F6D4-4FC2-9EEE-4A396C1264A3@frobbit.se>
	<ae5be4a09bb242fa8c0b5f25a862a889@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <E2737FC4-2675-412E-A3F0-F8C5203A4EE5@frobbit.se>

On 12 Nov 2015, at 14:48, Manal Ismail wrote:

> 	[MI]: I'm not clear about the exact suggestion here .. Can you or Jennifer kindly do the necessary edit or let me know what the exact edits are?

Oh, it seems it was not clear where my text ended with comments on missing things, and where the list of changes made to our proposal starts.

Let me read what you have made. I think you have adressed all my issues.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151112/147dc539/attachment.sig>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Thu Nov 12 21:04:54 2015
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:04:54 -0500
Subject: [Internal-cg] IANA and IGF WS 163
References: <EAF273A9-4AE8-4F54-80C0-E5AEE810ED00@Internet-Matters.com>
Message-ID: <E741860F-734A-4982-9301-96DC68212465@LStAmour.org>

Dear ICG Colleagues,

this morning I sat on a panel at IGF 2015 (with other ICG and OC colleagues).  The panel was:  Multistakeholder Internet Governance - IANA Stewardship.  It was meant to focus on multi-stakholder process with the IANA Transition as an example (and not alot of focus on the proposal itself).

I gave a 10 minute introduction largely relying on ICG slides and ICG past presentations, and the updated Part 0.  That is attached below (minus the slides).

Best,
Lynn

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF 2015 IANA WS 163.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 137724 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151112/16119089/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------





From manal at tra.gov.eg  Fri Nov 13 12:15:30 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:15:30 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] IANA and IGF WS 163
In-Reply-To: <E741860F-734A-4982-9301-96DC68212465@LStAmour.org>
References: <EAF273A9-4AE8-4F54-80C0-E5AEE810ED00@Internet-Matters.com>
	<E741860F-734A-4982-9301-96DC68212465@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <0291530fbac04531a3a704c372608ee4@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Many thanks Lynn for sharing, particularly that I have missed the first 15 minutes of the session ..
I have tried to make a remote comment through the chat room which I do not think was clear enough when it was read out .. Here it is in writing ..

"I think the overall process is very positive and educational .. It has, so far, demonstrated that the multistakeholder bottom-up model works and can deliver .. I would particularly applaud the transparency and de-centralization of the process as well as the smooth coordination among the different groups through their chairs, liaisons, members and participants ..  More generally, I believe the cross-community working groups serve as an efficient mechanism in exchanging and converging views of the various stakeholders and best utilizes the multi-stakeholder nature of the organization .. Finally, in terms of reaching out beyond ICANN community, I believe extensive efforts have been exerted in that sense, yet the pace of the process may have hindered getting more new faces to engage and participate actively .. But overall I believe it was a very positive experience .."

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:05 PM
To: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] IANA and IGF WS 163

Dear ICG Colleagues,

this morning I sat on a panel at IGF 2015 (with other ICG and OC colleagues).  The panel was:  Multistakeholder Internet Governance - IANA Stewardship.  It was meant to focus on multi-stakholder process with the IANA Transition as an example (and not alot of focus on the proposal itself).

I gave a 10 minute introduction largely relying on ICG slides and ICG past presentations, and the updated Part 0.  That is attached below (minus the slides).

Best,
Lynn



From manal at tra.gov.eg  Fri Nov 13 12:15:32 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:15:32 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <E2737FC4-2675-412E-A3F0-F8C5203A4EE5@frobbit.se>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
	<90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<cb9d814585444984ac4f524ce8a24a12@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<4294A3D1-F6D4-4FC2-9EEE-4A396C1264A3@frobbit.se>
	<ae5be4a09bb242fa8c0b5f25a862a889@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<E2737FC4-2675-412E-A3F0-F8C5203A4EE5@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <bcc0fd58b00b4a01ba5d8c152786b2fd@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Ah, I see .. thanks for the clarification .. awaiting your confirmation ..
Thanks again for the going through the tedious task of proofreading ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 5:07 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Lynn St.Amour; IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..

On 12 Nov 2015, at 14:48, Manal Ismail wrote:

> 	[MI]: I'm not clear about the exact suggestion here .. Can you or Jennifer kindly do the necessary edit or let me know what the exact edits are?

Oh, it seems it was not clear where my text ended with comments on missing things, and where the list of changes made to our proposal starts.

Let me read what you have made. I think you have adressed all my issues.

   Patrik


From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Nov 16 16:53:19 2015
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 08:53:19 -0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal
	Update on Progress Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin
References: <D26EB131.F6BC%hillary.jett@icann.org>
Message-ID: <3B368F5A-50EB-45DC-A8F4-37DCE746B2A2@cooperw.in>

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin
> Date: November 15, 2015 at 7:01:27 PM PST
> To: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> 
> Original posting: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-progress-made-in-and-after-icann54-in-dublin <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-progress-made-in-and-after-icann54-in-dublin>
> 
> —
> 
> CCWG-Accountability Issues Formal Update on Progress Made In and After ICANN54 in Dublin
> Context
> This is a brief and preliminary overview of the proposal for improving ICANN's accountability developed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) over the past year. It includes a very high-level summary of the main changes being proposed by the community and outlines what will be described in the full proposal.
> 
> This 36-page document is designed to update the community on recent progress in and after ICANN54 in Dublin and raise awareness of the proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability as a more detailed proposal is finalized. While this formal update reflects the current consensus positions of the group, there are outstanding elements that remain to be finalized. These finishing details are highlighted in the document, and will be confirmed and detailed in the Third Draft Proposal.
> 
> Download the Formal Update here. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stream-1-recs-15nov15-en.pdf>
> 
> The full Third Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations will be shared with the public on 30 November 2015, which will include further explanation and detail about the accountability improvements outlined in this document. It will also explain why the changes have been suggested, how the community arrived at these recommendations and the options considered and ultimately rejected in development of the proposal.
> 
> We welcome feedback on this document, and encourage all interested stakeholders to view the full proposal for any outstanding questions or concerns.
> 
> Summary
> Over the last year, a working group of ICANN community members has been developing a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability to the global Internet community.
> 
> This effort is integral to the transition of the United States' stewardship of the IANA functions to the global Internet community, reflecting the ICANN community's conclusion that improvements to ICANN's accountability were necessary in the absence of the accountability backstop that the historical contractual relationship with the United States government provided. The accountability improvements set out in this document are not designed to change ICANN's multistakeholder model, the bottom-up nature of policy development nor significantly alter ICANN's day-to-day operations.
> 
> The main elements of the proposal are outlined below. Together with ICANN's existing structures and groups, these accountability enhancements will ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.
> 
> A revised Mission statement for the ICANN Bylaws that sets out what ICANN does. This Mission statement clarifies but does not change ICANN's historic mission
> An enhanced Independent Review Process and redress process with a broader scope and the power to ensure ICANN stays within its revised Mission
> New specific powers for the ICANN community that can be enforced when the usual methods of discussion and dialogue have not effectively built consensus including the powers to:
> Reject ICANN Budgets, Operating Plans or Strategic Plans
> Reject changes to ICANN's Bylaws
> Approve changes to new Fundamental Bylaws (see below)
> Remove an individual ICANN Director from the Board
> Recall the entire ICANN Board
> 
> An additional new power that gives the community a say in decisions about the IANA Function Reviews and any separation of the IANA Names Functions
> All of these community powers can only be exercised after extensive community discussions and debates through processes of engagement and escalation. The process of escalation provides many opportunities for the resolution of disagreements between the parties before formal action is required.
> The accountability elements outlined above will be supported through:
> 
> Additions to the ICANN Bylaws to create an Empowered Community that is based on a simple legal vehicle that will act on the instructions of ICANN stakeholder groups to exercise the Community Powers. The Empowered Community is granted the status of a Designator (a recognized role in law) and has the standing to enforce the Community Powers if needed.
> Core elements of ICANN's governing documents (the Articles and Bylaws) being categorized asFundamental Bylaws that can only be changed with agreement between the ICANN community and the ICANN Board.
> In addition, further proposed changes include:
> 
> A recognition of ICANN's respect for Human Rights
> Incorporation of ICANN's commitments under the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments with the United States Department of Commerce into the Bylaws, where appropriate
> Improved accountability and diversity for ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
> A commitment to discuss additional accountability improvements and broader accountability enhancements in 2016, following implementation of this core set of accountability improvements
> To develop these recommendations to improve ICANN's accountability, the Working Group:
> 
> Relied on suggestions and proposals generated inside the Working Group and by the broader Internet multistakeholder community
> Conducted public comment periods to gather feedback on earlier drafts and discussed iterations of its recommendations across the world at ICANN meetings and through online webinars
> Rigorously "stress tested" ICANN's current and proposed accountability mechanisms to test their strength against problematic scenarios the organization could potentially face
> Engaged two external law firms to ensure the legal reliability of the proposed accountability enhancements
> Made the minimum enhancements to ICANN's accountability necessary to meet the baseline requirements of the community, as required for the IANA Stewardship Transition
> Met the requirements of the group that developed the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal for the Domain Names community
> Met the requirements of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Agency for theIANA Stewardship Transition
> We look forward to your thoughts and feedback on our Third Draft Proposal on Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
> 
> -- 
> Hillary Jett
> Communications Coordinator
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403
> Email: hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151116/055f76c3/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Wed Nov 18 21:06:02 2015
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:06:02 +0100
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <ae5be4a09bb242fa8c0b5f25a862a889@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
	<90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<cb9d814585444984ac4f524ce8a24a12@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<4294A3D1-F6D4-4FC2-9EEE-4A396C1264A3@frobbit.se>
	<ae5be4a09bb242fa8c0b5f25a862a889@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <1A57B075-2879-485A-9A62-60E17E46BF20@frobbit.se>

On 12 Nov 2015, at 14:48, Manal Ismail wrote:

> Many thanks Patrik and Jennifer ..
> I've tried my best to incorporate the edits suggested below, but I'm afraid I did not understand all suggestions ..
> Please check the attached (also available on Dropbox), and comments inline below ..
> If the secretariat is already clear about the remaining edits, please feel free to proceed with them for the sake of time ..

Sorry for the delay... I have now looked at this and think this is ready to ship!

    Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Public Comment Summary -12Nov15-edits to match proposal.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 129824 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151118/a6a50a3d/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151118/a6a50a3d/attachment.sig>

From manal at tra.gov.eg  Wed Nov 18 22:16:24 2015
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:16:24 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..
In-Reply-To: <1A57B075-2879-485A-9A62-60E17E46BF20@frobbit.se>
References: <239380e0360f45b19cfd78ccdecb70c3@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<779A0D2E-2EA8-476B-9F8A-DF5536265AEC@LStAmour.org>
	<009301d112e9$f68423b0$e38c6b10$@icgsec.asia>
	<9cbd51b9c8704de88d7d34789ebbbc0c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<8956DECF-B12A-454F-B94B-A678F574E7CE@LStAmour.org>
	<90f1683c32c64768ac3d6848e3e3a3b2@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<cb9d814585444984ac4f524ce8a24a12@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<4294A3D1-F6D4-4FC2-9EEE-4A396C1264A3@frobbit.se>
	<ae5be4a09bb242fa8c0b5f25a862a889@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<1A57B075-2879-485A-9A62-60E17E46BF20@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <e6cf19aceb65443fb21dcf7ce3f9d896@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG>

Great !! Thanks again ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 11:06 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Lynn St.Amour; IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public Comment Summary Report - f2f edits ..

On 12 Nov 2015, at 14:48, Manal Ismail wrote:

> Many thanks Patrik and Jennifer ..
> I've tried my best to incorporate the edits suggested below, but I'm afraid I did not understand all suggestions ..
> Please check the attached (also available on Dropbox), and comments inline below ..
> If the secretariat is already clear about the remaining edits, please feel free to proceed with them for the sake of time ..

Sorry for the delay... I have now looked at this and think this is ready to ship!

    Patrik


From jen at icgsec.asia  Mon Nov 30 19:32:02 2015
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:32:02 -0500
Subject: [Internal-cg] Public Announcement - Summary Document published
Message-ID: <000c01d12ba5$cacbb100$60631300$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

 

The Summary Document (attached) has been published and the public
announcement has been posted on the ICG web site and social media accounts:

 

Web site: https://www.ianacg.org/?p=1257 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ianastewardship/status/671408015128555521

FB: https://www.facebook.com/ianastewardship/posts/1718697831692182 

 

Please share with your communities!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151130/f18f71fd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 259211 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151130/f18f71fd/attachment.pdf>